MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7107860652 · doi:10.19204/2025/thsn10

The Sense of Coherence and Mental Health Among First Responders: a scoping review and critical analysis of causation

2025· article· en· W7107860652 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthCausal inferenceCausationCoping (psychology)PopulationTraitCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Causality (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Public safety personnel (PSP) experience three to five times higher rates of occupatio-nal stress injuries and adverse mental health outcomes. Sense of coherence (SOC) is a psychological trait that reflects coping capacity to deal with stressors, shown to act as a protective factor against adverse mental health outcomes. Methods: This review was conducted using the five-stage scoping review framework to answer two questions: 1) what is the extent, nature, and quality of research that has investigated the SOC and PSP mental health, and 2) what is the current state of the causal inference between SOC and post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and how does this guide next steps for research. Articles were identified through seven databases, “grey” literature, and hand-searching. Publication details, me-thodology, participant information, and results were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics. A quality and causal analysis were performed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool and Bradford Hill Criteria for causation. Results: Eleven articles were included in this review. The publication years ranged from 2000 to 2020, 91% of the articles originated from the European Union, and 64% had a medium to high risk-ofbias. The PSP population of interest included police officers, firefighters, and paramedics. Most studies (73%) used a cross-sectional design to assess the relationship between SOC and PTSS. All studies reported that lower PTSS were low to moderately associated with higher SOC scores (r= -0.17 to -0.47, p< 0.05 to 0.001 and β = -0.31, p= 0.009). There was insufficient research to support a causal relationship between the SOC and PTSS, as the literature did not support several criteria (i.e., strength, consistency, temporality, and experimental evidence). Conclusions: While SOC evidence is preliminary, associations are sufficient to warrant future longi-tudinal and interventional studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.266
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.266
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0380.025
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.299
GPT teacher head0.675
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207