消防员心理健康教育计划比较:对消防员经历的描述性专题分析。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Sara M. Stretton , Joy C. MacDermid , Margaret Lomotan , Shannon C. Killip
{"title":"消防员心理健康教育计划比较:对消防员经历的描述性专题分析。","authors":"Sara M. Stretton ,&nbsp;Joy C. MacDermid ,&nbsp;Margaret Lomotan ,&nbsp;Shannon C. Killip","doi":"10.1016/j.comppsych.2024.152547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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 (<em>n</em> = 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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10554,"journal":{"name":"Comprehensive psychiatry","volume":"136 ","pages":"Article 152547"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of firefighter mental health education programs: A descriptive thematic analysis of firefighter experiences\",\"authors\":\"Sara M. Stretton ,&nbsp;Joy C. MacDermid ,&nbsp;Margaret Lomotan ,&nbsp;Shannon C. Killip\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.comppsych.2024.152547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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 (<em>n</em> = 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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comprehensive psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"136 \",\"pages\":\"Article 152547\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comprehensive psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010440X24000981\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comprehensive psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010440X24000981","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了应对消防员固有的突发事件风险,人们开发了各种心理健康教育计划。本研究旨在探讨参加过此类项目的消防员的看法,以了解这些项目之间的差异/相似之处:我们招募了 14 名参加者,他们参加过或提供过两个或两个以上的消防员项目(Resilient Minds (RM)、Road to Mental Readiness (R2MR) 和 Before Operational Stress (BOS))。参与者参加了半结构式访谈,访谈内容包括他们学到的、回忆起的、使用过的信息以及他们的偏好。采用主题分析法对数据进行了分析:结果:参与者认为,所有项目都有一些共同的教学方法、目标、技能和主题;但是,每个项目都有重点/独特之处。据说,RM 主要是集体参与,侧重于帮助自己、同伴和公民。据说,R2MR 和 BOS 主要是讲座式的,侧重于自我。70% 参加过 RM(n = 7)和一门其他课程的学员更喜欢 RM,因为它针对消防员的培训更具体,教学方法更活跃,而且注重实际技能的培养。其他学员(43%)对课程没有偏好。学员们建议,采用分层方法开展心理健康教育将使消防员受益匪浅:结论:所有项目都被认为是有益的。尽管在目标和内容上有一些相同之处,但大多数消防员更喜欢 RM,因为其内容是针对消防工作的,而且教学方法被认为更积极、更吸引人。项目的特点对于促进适当的项目选择非常重要,因此,项目应明确这些方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of firefighter mental health education programs: A descriptive thematic analysis of firefighter experiences

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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Comprehensive psychiatry
Comprehensive psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
1.40%
发文量
64
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: "Comprehensive Psychiatry" is an open access, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the field of psychiatry and mental health. Its primary mission is to share the latest advancements in knowledge to enhance patient care and deepen the understanding of mental illnesses. The journal is supported by a diverse team of international editors and peer reviewers, ensuring the publication of high-quality research with a strong focus on clinical relevance and the implications for psychopathology. "Comprehensive Psychiatry" encourages authors to present their research in an accessible manner, facilitating engagement with clinicians, policymakers, and the broader public. By embracing an open access policy, the journal aims to maximize the global impact of its content, making it readily available to a wide audience and fostering scientific collaboration and public awareness beyond the traditional academic community. This approach is designed to promote a more inclusive and informed dialogue on mental health, contributing to the overall progress in the field.
×
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