Content area

Abstract

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.

Details

Title
A comparison of firefighter mental health education programs: A descriptive thematic analysis of firefighter experiences
Author
Stretton, Sara M; MacDermid, Joy C; Lomotan, Margaret; Killip, Shannon C
Publication year
2025
Publication date
Jan 2025
Publisher
Elsevier Limited
ISSN
0010440X
e-ISSN
15328384
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
3141799755
Copyright
©2024. The Authors