Cargando…

Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency responders are routinely exposed to traumatic critical incidents and other occupational stressors that place them at higher risk of mental ill health compared to the general population. There is some evidence to suggest that resilience training may improve emergency responders’...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wild, Jennifer, El-Salahi, Shama, Degli Esposti, Michelle, Thew, Graham R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7660584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33180798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241704
_version_ 1783609036096143360
author Wild, Jennifer
El-Salahi, Shama
Degli Esposti, Michelle
Thew, Graham R.
author_facet Wild, Jennifer
El-Salahi, Shama
Degli Esposti, Michelle
Thew, Graham R.
author_sort Wild, Jennifer
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Emergency responders are routinely exposed to traumatic critical incidents and other occupational stressors that place them at higher risk of mental ill health compared to the general population. There is some evidence to suggest that resilience training may improve emergency responders’ wellbeing and related health outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a tertiary service resilience intervention compared to psychoeducation for improving psychological outcomes among emergency workers. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Minim software was used to randomly allocate police, ambulance, fire, and search and rescue services personnel, who were not suffering from depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, to Mind’s group intervention or to online psychoeducation on a 3:1 basis. The resilience intervention was group-based and included stress management and mindfulness tools for reducing stress. It was delivered by trained staff at nine centres across England in six sessions, one per week for six weeks. The comparison intervention was psychoeducation about stress and mental health delivered online, one module per week for six weeks. Primary outcomes were assessed by self-report and included wellbeing, resilience, self-efficacy, problem-solving, social capital, confidence in managing mental health, and number of days off work due to illness. Follow-up was conducted at three months. Blinding of participants, researchers and outcome assessment was not possible due to the type of interventions. RESULTS: A total of 430 participants (resilience intervention N = 317; psychoeducation N = 113) were randomised and included in intent-to-treat analyses. Linear Mixed-Effects Models did not show a significant difference between the interventions, at either the post-intervention or follow-up time points, on any outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: The limited success of this intervention is consistent with the wider literature. Future refinements to the intervention may benefit from targeting predictors of resilience and mental ill health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN79407277.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7660584
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76605842020-11-18 Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial Wild, Jennifer El-Salahi, Shama Degli Esposti, Michelle Thew, Graham R. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Emergency responders are routinely exposed to traumatic critical incidents and other occupational stressors that place them at higher risk of mental ill health compared to the general population. There is some evidence to suggest that resilience training may improve emergency responders’ wellbeing and related health outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a tertiary service resilience intervention compared to psychoeducation for improving psychological outcomes among emergency workers. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Minim software was used to randomly allocate police, ambulance, fire, and search and rescue services personnel, who were not suffering from depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, to Mind’s group intervention or to online psychoeducation on a 3:1 basis. The resilience intervention was group-based and included stress management and mindfulness tools for reducing stress. It was delivered by trained staff at nine centres across England in six sessions, one per week for six weeks. The comparison intervention was psychoeducation about stress and mental health delivered online, one module per week for six weeks. Primary outcomes were assessed by self-report and included wellbeing, resilience, self-efficacy, problem-solving, social capital, confidence in managing mental health, and number of days off work due to illness. Follow-up was conducted at three months. Blinding of participants, researchers and outcome assessment was not possible due to the type of interventions. RESULTS: A total of 430 participants (resilience intervention N = 317; psychoeducation N = 113) were randomised and included in intent-to-treat analyses. Linear Mixed-Effects Models did not show a significant difference between the interventions, at either the post-intervention or follow-up time points, on any outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: The limited success of this intervention is consistent with the wider literature. Future refinements to the intervention may benefit from targeting predictors of resilience and mental ill health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN79407277. Public Library of Science 2020-11-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7660584/ /pubmed/33180798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241704 Text en © 2020 Wild et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wild, Jennifer
El-Salahi, Shama
Degli Esposti, Michelle
Thew, Graham R.
Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial
title Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial
title_full Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial
title_short Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial
title_sort evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in england: a randomised controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7660584/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33180798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241704
work_keys_str_mv AT wildjennifer evaluatingtheeffectivenessofagroupbasedresilienceinterventionversuspsychoeducationforemergencyrespondersinenglandarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT elsalahishama evaluatingtheeffectivenessofagroupbasedresilienceinterventionversuspsychoeducationforemergencyrespondersinenglandarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT degliespostimichelle evaluatingtheeffectivenessofagroupbasedresilienceinterventionversuspsychoeducationforemergencyrespondersinenglandarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT thewgrahamr evaluatingtheeffectivenessofagroupbasedresilienceinterventionversuspsychoeducationforemergencyrespondersinenglandarandomisedcontrolledtrial