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

<h4>Background</h4>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 em...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jennifer Wild, Shama El-Salahi, Michelle Degli Esposti, Graham R Thew
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241704
id doaj-564f91a4b9bb4e89bda25a5b691af3f8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-564f91a4b9bb4e89bda25a5b691af3f82021-03-04T12:25:03ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-011511e024170410.1371/journal.pone.0241704Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial.Jennifer WildShama El-SalahiMichelle Degli EspostiGraham R Thew<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.<h4>Trial registration</h4>ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN79407277.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241704
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jennifer Wild
Shama El-Salahi
Michelle Degli Esposti
Graham R Thew
spellingShingle Jennifer Wild
Shama El-Salahi
Michelle Degli Esposti
Graham R Thew
Evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in England: A randomised controlled trial.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Jennifer Wild
Shama El-Salahi
Michelle Degli Esposti
Graham R Thew
author_sort Jennifer Wild
title 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_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_sort evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based resilience intervention versus psychoeducation for emergency responders in england: a randomised controlled trial.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2020-01-01
description <h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.<h4>Trial registration</h4>ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN79407277.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241704
work_keys_str_mv AT jenniferwild evaluatingtheeffectivenessofagroupbasedresilienceinterventionversuspsychoeducationforemergencyrespondersinenglandarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT shamaelsalahi evaluatingtheeffectivenessofagroupbasedresilienceinterventionversuspsychoeducationforemergencyrespondersinenglandarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT michelledegliesposti evaluatingtheeffectivenessofagroupbasedresilienceinterventionversuspsychoeducationforemergencyrespondersinenglandarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT grahamrthew evaluatingtheeffectivenessofagroupbasedresilienceinterventionversuspsychoeducationforemergencyrespondersinenglandarandomisedcontrolledtrial
_version_ 1714802844131917824