A comparison of firefighter mental health education programs: A descriptive thematic analysis of firefighter experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In response to the inherent critical incident exposures experienced by firefighters, various mental health education programs have been developed. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of firefighters who took such programs to understand differences/similarities across these programs. METHODS: We recruited 14 participants, who had taken or delivered two or more programs for firefighters (Resilient Minds (RM), Road to Mental Readiness (R2MR), and Before Operational Stress (BOS)). Participants participated in semi-structured interviews, which explored information that they learned, recalled, used, and their preferences. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants believed that all programs had some shared teaching methods, goals, skills, and topics; however, each program had key focuses/distinctive features. RM was said to be largely group participation and focused on assisting yourself, peers, and citizens. R2MR and BOS was said to be largely lecture style with a focus on the self. 70 % of participants who took RM (n = 7) and one other course preferred RM due to the specificity of training to firefighters, more active teaching methods, and focus on practical skill development. Others (43 %) had no program preference. Participants suggest that a tiered approach to mental health education would benefit firefighters. CONCLUSIONS: All programs were seen as helpful. Despite some congruency in goals and content, most firefighters preferred RM because the content was fire-specific, and the pedagogical approach was seen as more active and engaging. Program characteristics are important to facilitate appropriate program selection, as such, programs should be explicit about these aspects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".