Exploring the association between post–critical incident intervention preferences and self-reported coping self-efficacy among firefighters

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Joselyn R. Sarabia, Elinam Dellor, Bridget Freisthler, Katherine Kieninger
{"title":"Exploring the association between post–critical incident intervention preferences and self-reported coping self-efficacy among firefighters","authors":"Joselyn R. Sarabia,&nbsp;Elinam Dellor,&nbsp;Bridget Freisthler,&nbsp;Katherine Kieninger","doi":"10.1002/jts.23029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) is a commonly utilized intervention in the fire service that aims to minimize psychological harm and adverse mental health outcomes after a potentially traumatic incident. This study aimed to explore firefighter preferences regarding CISD and alternative post–critical incident interventions in relation to firefighter coping self-efficacy (FFCSE) and trauma coping self-efficacy (CSE-T). Firefighters (<i>N</i> = 241) completed an online survey and provided complete data. Most participants were White (<i>n</i> = 203, 84.2%), non-Hispanic (<i>n</i> = 221, 91.7%) men (94.2%; <i>n</i> = 227). CISD was the most preferred intervention among firefighters (<i>n</i> = 113, 46.9%) as compared to informal peer support (<i>n</i> = 31, 12.9%), formal one-on-one counseling (<i>n</i> = 29, 12.0%), and no intervention (<i>n</i> = 68, 28.2%). Firefighters who preferred CISD had statistically significant lower levels of FFCSE, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> <i>=</i> .033–.044, <i>p</i>s = .012–.030, and CSE-T, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> <i>=</i> .035–.061 <i>p</i>s = .017–.024, compared to those who preferred no intervention. Firefighters who preferred formal one-on-one counseling had statistically significantly lower levels of FFCSE, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> <i>=</i> .033–.044, <i>p</i>s = .003–.011, and CSE-T, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> <i>=</i> .035–0.061, <i>p</i> &lt; .001–<i>p</i> = .002, compared to those who preferred no intervention. The findings from this study may guide future research to increase knowledge on firefighter intervention preferences and the association between preference and coping self-efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":17519,"journal":{"name":"Journal of traumatic stress","volume":"37 3","pages":"504-515"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jts.23029","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of traumatic stress","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jts.23029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) is a commonly utilized intervention in the fire service that aims to minimize psychological harm and adverse mental health outcomes after a potentially traumatic incident. This study aimed to explore firefighter preferences regarding CISD and alternative post–critical incident interventions in relation to firefighter coping self-efficacy (FFCSE) and trauma coping self-efficacy (CSE-T). Firefighters (N = 241) completed an online survey and provided complete data. Most participants were White (n = 203, 84.2%), non-Hispanic (n = 221, 91.7%) men (94.2%; n = 227). CISD was the most preferred intervention among firefighters (n = 113, 46.9%) as compared to informal peer support (n = 31, 12.9%), formal one-on-one counseling (n = 29, 12.0%), and no intervention (n = 68, 28.2%). Firefighters who preferred CISD had statistically significant lower levels of FFCSE, R2 = .033–.044, ps = .012–.030, and CSE-T, R2 = .035–.061 ps = .017–.024, compared to those who preferred no intervention. Firefighters who preferred formal one-on-one counseling had statistically significantly lower levels of FFCSE, R2 = .033–.044, ps = .003–.011, and CSE-T, R2 = .035–0.061, p < .001–p = .002, compared to those who preferred no intervention. The findings from this study may guide future research to increase knowledge on firefighter intervention preferences and the association between preference and coping self-efficacy.

Abstract Image

探索消防员对突发事件后干预的偏好与自我报告的应对自我效能之间的关联。
重大事件压力汇报(CISD)是消防部门常用的一种干预措施,旨在最大限度地减少潜在创伤事件后的心理伤害和不良心理健康后果。本研究旨在探讨消防员对 CISD 和其他与消防员应对自我效能(FFCSE)和创伤应对自我效能(CSE-T)相关的重大事件后干预措施的偏好。消防员(人数 = 241)完成了在线调查并提供了完整的数据。大多数参与者为白人(n = 203,84.2%)、非西班牙裔(n = 221,91.7%)男性(94.2%;n = 227)。与非正式的同伴支持(n = 31,12.9%)、正式的一对一咨询(n = 29,12.0%)和无干预措施(n = 68,28.2%)相比,CISD 是消防员最喜欢的干预措施(n = 113,46.9%)。与选择不干预的消防员相比,选择 CISD 的消防员的 FFCSE(R2 = .033-.044,ps = .012-.030)和 CSE-T (R2 = .035-.061 ps = .017-.024)水平明显较低。选择一对一正式咨询的消防员的 FFCSE 水平(R2 = .033-.044,ps = .003-.011)和 CSE-T 水平(R2 = .035-0.061,ps = .017-.024)明显低于不选择干预的消防员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.10%
发文量
125
期刊介绍: Journal of Traumatic Stress (JTS) is published for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress , the official publication for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on biopsychosocial aspects of trauma. Papers focus on theoretical formulations, research, treatment, prevention education/training, and legal and policy concerns. Journal of Traumatic Stress serves as a primary reference for professionals who study and treat people exposed to highly stressful and traumatic events (directly or through their occupational roles), such as war, disaster, accident, violence or abuse (criminal or familial), hostage-taking, or life-threatening illness. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, review papers, commentaries, and, from time to time, special issues devoted to a single topic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信