Exploring the Occupational Lifestyle Experiences of the Families of Public Safety Personnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Public safety personnel, including first responders, are regularly exposed to physical, social, and psychological risks and occupational requirements. These risks and requirements extend beyond the employee and may also impact the families (for example, work-family conflict, compassion fatigue). Despite recent attention directed at the population's wellness, considerably less attention is directed towards the family. This review investigates how the risks and requirements associated with these occupations affect families' lives and experiences, and correspondingly, how families respond and adapt to these risks. METHODS: In the current qualitative review, we sought to identify and describe the lifestyle experiences of public safety families as they navigate the occupational risks and requirements of public safety work. The inclusion criteria resulted in an analysis of 18 articles, representing only police (n = 11), paramedics (n = 7), and firefighting (n = 10) sectors. RESULTS: We identified and described the experiences of public safety families both by occupation and familial role. Shared familial themes across occupational groups included 'Worry', 'Communication', 'Where do I turn', 'Are they okay', 'Serving alongside', and '(Over)Protective'. However, distinct themes also emerged between different occupational groups and family configurations. Themes prevalent amongst primarily children of police included: 'Worry', 'Let's Laugh Instead', '(Over)Protective', and 'I'm not the Police, my Parent is!'. Experiences differed if the family contained on serving public safety personnel or multiple. CONCLUSION: We identified the shared and unique occupational experiences of public safety families. This review normalizes these experiences and emphasizes the need to develop initiatives to improve the well-being of families and safety employees.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".