Public safety personnel’s perceptions of mental health training: an assessment of the Emotional Resilience Skills Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public safety personnel (PSP) work experiences necessitate diverse and frequent exposures to potentially psychologically traumatic events (PPTEs) and other occupational stressors, which may explain the higher prevalence of mental health disorders and suicidal ideation among PSP relative to the general population. Consequently, PSP require emotional coping skills and evidence-informed mental health training to navigate arduous situations. The Emotional Resilience Skills Training (ERST) is a pilot 13-week mental health training program led by a peer and based on the robustly evidenced Unified Protocol for the Transdiagnostic Treatment of Mental Disorders. The study assessed whether PSP: perceived the ERST as improving their mental health or their management of stressors; applied the associated knowledge and skills; and would recommend ESRT to other PSP. Data were collected using a self-report survey and focus groups. A total of 197 PSP (58% male) completed a self-report survey and 72 PSP (33% female) participated in a sector-specific focus group to assess the ERST. The results indicate that PSP perceived ERST as helpful when applied. Almost all participants would recommend the training to other PSP. PSP expressed the ongoing need for mental health skills and knowledge, but also identified mental health training gaps during early-career training and stages.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".