Exploring the needs of healthcare workers receiving psychological first aid during the COVID19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCW; e.g., nurses, social workers) work in stressful conditions, a situation that has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. A review of the supportive role of Psychological first aid (PFA) suggested that it can protect HCW from psychological distress. Despite the growing interest of PFA among public health organizations, there is a dearth of literature on its potential impact for the psychological well-being of HCW and its implementation within organizations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether PFA met the psychological needs of HCW in Montreal, Quebec. METHODS: A sample of 15 HCW who received PFA by a peer within their organization were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Qualitative research using thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: 1) PFA satisfied participants' psychosocial needs; 2) PFA provided by peers allowed participants to feel understood and supported; 3) High availability and multiple modalities facilitated PFA access; 4) Occupational and organizational cultures hindered PFA access; and 5) Recommendations to promote the use of the PFA service. CONCLUSION: Results describe four psychosocial needs met by the PFA intervention: to have resources/strategies, to be validated, to obtain a better understanding of the psychological reactions they were experiencing, and to be guided and supported in their difficulties at work. Overall, these findings illustrate how PFA goes beyond the reduction of distress symptoms in the aftermath of a potentially traumatic event. The relevance to further the assessment of PFA's positive effects on psychological adaptation and/or recovery is also highlighted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".