Paramedic Willingness to Report Violence Following the Introduction of a Novel, Point-of-Event Reporting Process in a Single Canadian Paramedic Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence against paramedics is increasingly recognized as an important occupational health problem, but pervasive and institutionalized underreporting hinders efforts at risk mitigation. Earlier research has shown that the organizational culture within paramedicine may contribute to underreporting and researchers have recommended involving paramedics in the development of violence prevention policies, including reporting systems. Eighteen months after the launch of a new comprehensive violence reporting system in Peel Region, Ontario, Canada, we surveyed paramedics about their willingness to report violent encounters. A total of 204 (33% of eligible) paramedics chose to participate, of whom 67% (N=137) had experienced violence since the launch of the new reporting process, with 83% (N=114) reporting the incidents at least some of the time. In choosing to report, participants cited the accessibility of the new reporting process and the desire to promote accountability among perpetrators while contributing to a safer workplace as motivating factors. Their decisions to file a report, however, could be influenced by the perceived ‘volitionality’ and severity of the violent encounters, particularly in the context of (un)supportive co-workers and supervisors. Ultimately, the participants’ belief that the report would lead to meaningful change within the service was a key driver of reporting behavior.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".