Walk the line: a systemic perspective on stress experienced by emergency medical personnel by comparing military and civilian prehospital settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Emergency Medicine (EM) personnel in both military and civilian prehospital settings are often exposed to stressful and extreme events. Therefore, a cross-pollination between both contexts in terms of coping strategies may generate new information for purposes of training, prevention, and support programs. In the current study, we aimed at comparing both contexts to understand the type of stress events personnel experience; whether experience differs between civilian and military personnel; and how they cope with it. Methods: We used a mixed method approach, combining the results of a quantitative questionnaire and a thematic analysis of 23 in-depth semi-structured interviews to gain additional qualitative information. Results: Whereas the questionnaire pointed to a significant preference for task-oriented coping over avoidant and emotion-oriented coping, the interviews offered a more nuanced insight, showing a constant aim to position themselves on a continuum between emotional disconnection from the patient to preserve operationality on the one hand; and remaining enough empathic to preserve humanity on the other hand. We further identified an ambivalent awareness regarding emotions and stress, a vulnerable disbalance between an excessive passion for the job with the sacrifice of own's personal life (for a growing volatile and dangerous working environment) and a lack of recognition from both the patient and organizational environment. The combination of these factors may carry the risk for moral injury and compassion fatigue. Therefore, mutual trust between the organizational level and EM personnel as well as among team members is crucial. Discussion: The results are discussed from a systemic SHELL perspective, indicating how the specific profile of EM personnel relates to the software, hardware, environmental and liveware components of their professional and private life. Trainings on stress- and risk awareness should be approached both on an individual and systemic level, knowing that there is clearly no "one-size-fits-all" manner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".