RESUMEN
Military personnel, police officers, firefighters, and other first responders must prepare for and respond to life-threatening crises on a daily basis. This lifestyle places stress on personnel, and particularly so on military personnel who may be isolated from support systems and other resources. The authors conducted a systematic review of studies of interventions designed to prevent, identify, and manage acute occupational stress among military, law enforcement, and first responders. The body of evidence consisted of 38 controlled trials, 35 cohort comparisons, and 42 case studies with no comparison group, reported in 136 publications. Interventions consisted of resilience training, stress inoculation with biofeedback, mindfulness, psychological first aid, front-line mental health centers, two- to seven-day restoration programs, debriefing (including critical incident stress debriefing), third-location decompression, postdeployment mental health screening, reintegration programs, and family-centered programs. Study limitations (risk of bias), directness, consistency, precision, and publication bias were considered in rating the quality of evidence for each outcome area. Overall, interventions had positive effects on return to duty, absenteeism, and distress. However, there was no significant impact on symptoms of psychological disorders such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety. Because of study limitations, inconsistency of results, indirectness, and possible publication bias, there was insufficient evidence to form conclusions about the effects of most specific intervention types, components, settings, or specific populations.
RESUMEN
Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. This study documents a scoping review of published methods used for identifying health research gaps, establishing research needs, and determining research priorities and provides relevant information on 362 studies. Of the 362 studies, 167 were linked to funding decisionmaking and underwent a more detailed data abstraction process. The authors noted that most studies focused on physical health conditions, but few addressed psychological health conditions. The most frequent method for identifying research gaps, needs, and priorities was to convene workshops or conferences. One-third of studies employed quantitative methods, and nearly as many used the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships approach. Other methods included literature reviews, qualitative methods, consensus methods, and reviews of source materials. The criterion most widely applied to determine health research gaps, needs, and priorities was the importance to stakeholders, followed by the potential value and feasibility of carrying out the research. The two largest stakeholder groups were researchers and clinicians. More than one-half the studies involved patients and the public as stakeholders. Very few studies have evaluated the impact of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities. This study provides a roadmap of methods used for identifying health research gaps, needs, and priorities, which may help accelerate progress toward validating methods that ensure the effective targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and to maximize impact.