Leisure education and parks programming to address stress, burnout, and coping in law enforcement officers: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law enforcement officers (LEOs) frequently experience occupational stress, which may lead to burnout. Without positive coping strategies, LEOs are at risk of a myriad of negative health-related issues. This exploratory study evaluated the impact of a leisure education and parks programme offered in the workplace on stress, burnout, and coping in LEOs. Ten LEOs enrolled in the six-week programme that offered group leisure education sessions supplemented by individual time spent in parks. Scores on the Operational Police Stress Questionnaire (PSQ-Op) and Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) revealed lower stress and burnout scores for participants following the program, but the changes were not statistically significant. One subscale of the COPE Inventory, suppression of competing activities, revealed significantly higher scores post-programme (p =.04). The majority (77.78%) of the participants reported that they valued and were satisfied with the program. Findings provide initial support for leisure education and parks programming provided to LEOs in an effort to address their occupational health needs including stress, burnout, and coping.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".