New research from the Central Queensland University suggests that efforts to proactively intervene in psychosocial hazards in the emergency services sector are being inhibited by stigma, hierarchical organisational structures and limited resources.
Despite the significant contribution that emergency services (including police, paramedics, firefighters and rescue workers) make to public safety, they face psychosocial hazards and challenges in their workplaces that can seriously impact their mental health and wellbeing.
Emergency Service workers experience frequent exposure to traumatic events, such as witnessing fatalities, serious injuries, and this includes being exposed to the trauma vicariously. Such exposures coexist with high job demands that consume psychological resources and increase the risk of burnout and strain in addition to the substantial mental, physical, and emotional effort required in their roles. For example, repeated exposure to trauma in the Emergency Service workforce has been shown to increase the likelihood of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and self-harm. Shift work in Emergency Service workers has been associated with sleep deprivation or restriction, fatigue, and inadequate recovery time which may impact cognitive function and mental health outcomes.
Workplace violence is another prevalent psychosocial hazard, with up to 95% of Emergency Service workers reporting experiencing either physical assault, verbal abuse, or harassment. The existing cultural view that violence is an inherent part of Emergency Service work extends beyond public interactions, as many Emergency Service workers also report bullying and/or harassment from their colleagues and managers.
OHS laws place responsibility on employers to recognise, assess, and reduce psychosocial hazards and risks. Emergency Service organisations have implemented various interventions over the years, including mental health training programs, stress management initiatives, resilience training programs, and peer support programs, aimed at protecting workers' psychosocial health and wellbeing, however it is unlikely that relying solely on such measures will comply with new Psychological Health Regulation obligations. Intervention reviews focus on interventions for individual symptom treatment (e.g., resilience training, coping skills, psychological support) with less attention to organisation-level interventions that reduce psychosocial risk. Less attention has been given to primary prevention and psychosocial hazard management within the systems and practices of Emergency Service organisations. No review has specifically examined how Emergency Service organisations are integrating the management of psychosocial risks and prevention into existing health and safety arrangements.
This study aimed to focus on which workplace interventions have been implemented in Emergency Service organisations to manage psychosocial hazards, how effective are they in reducing psychological harm, and identify barriers to the success of those programs.
It was found that many Emergency Service workers feared negative career impacts from seeking help, with stigma surrounding poor mental health outcomes often preventing help-seeking behaviour. Concerns about being perceived as weak or unfit for duty appeared to further compound this issue. Organisational readiness and support from leadership were also deemed critical, but often lacking, with studies noting insufficient resources, poor coordination and resistance to cultural change. Many Emergency Service workers also exhibited scepticism and organisational cynicism, particularly when interventions were perceived as a means of organisational compliance rather than a genuine effort to improve well-being.
Research in other high-risk industries has shown that effective psychosocial hazard interventions are those that address systemic work structures (e.g., workload adjustments, work design) and cultural norms (e.g., reducing stigma) across the entirety of an organisation, rather than concentrating only on individual mental health outcomes. Stigma appears to operate at both individual and organisational levels and may affect how effective interventions are. At the organisational level, stigma may remain a critical barrier to the implementation and effectiveness of interventions.
The collective research suggests that interventions are most effective when applied to the organisation as a whole, seeking to change underlying work structures or cultural issues. Specifically, stigma at an organisational level remains a "critical barrier to the implementation and effectiveness of interventions". The researchers say high supervisor support and strong leadership have been shown to reduce stigma and may be important considerations to improve workers' engagement and participation.
Ultimately, the study found that to improve hazard management, interventions should involve workers at the core of intervention development and be focused in the preventative area at an organisational level, as successful implementation appears to be influenced by leadership, organisational culture and resource availability.