Implementation and evaluation of a psychological first aid program to manage post-traumatic stress injuries among Canadian police officers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Police officers are exposed to potentially psychological traumatic events and are at high risk of developing post-traumatic stress injuries (PTSI). Development and wide implementation of best practices for managing PTSI are needed. The psychological first aid (PFA) framework encompasses trauma-informed knowledge to guide the development of best practices. Based on the framework and on a pilot performed among Canadian police officers, we propose a PFA program including: 1) PTSI awareness e-learning; 2) PFA training provided by local trainers; and, 3) peer-to-peer PFA intervention to mitigate PTSI in police officers. The study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a large-scale PFA program implementation among Canadian police officers. METHODS: A multi-phase mixed-methods participatory action research study is being performed in five phases according to the PFA implementation and the dynamic sustainability frameworks. The program 1) was adapted to environmental needs; 2) is progressively deployed; and, to be evaluated for 3) feasibility; 4) effectiveness; and, 5) sustainability. Local trainers (N = 10) were trained to then train PFA providers (N = 322 police officers) who could then administer the intervention to police officers as needed (i.e., PFA recipients). The e-learning is being co-developed and will be disseminated. Program feasibility (i.e., acceptability, demand, practicality, implementation) will be assessed through interviews with trainers (n = 10), providers (n = 30), and recipients (n = 20). The program effectiveness will be assessed by tracking changes in PTSI literacy and stigma among officers who complete the e-learning (n = 5700) using pre-post e-learning questionnaires. Pre-post training questionnaires with participating providers (n = 175) will track perceived competence to provide the intervention. Pre-post intervention questionnaires with recipients (n = 64) will track changes in putative protective factors (i.e., professional quality of life, work safety, coping, sense of efficacy, sense of hope) and symptoms of PTSI (i.e., anxiety-, depressive-, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms). DISCUSSION: The PFA program is designed to help officers to recognize PTSI, promote self-care strategies and help-seeking, enhance organizational support, and expand psychological support. The study could provide trauma-informed guidelines for implementation and evaluation practices in high-risk and interdependent organizations and inform future directions for policy decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was pre-registered on OSF ( https://osf.io/7khgs/?view_only=33260c704ffc46ffb75a704320283ccf ).
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".