Article Text
Abstract
There has been an increasing interest in primary prevention programmes developed to improve police officers’ mental health. This meta-analysis synthesised the existing findings on psychological skills training for police personnel including resilience training and mindfulness-based training. Particularly, this study systematically assessed the effectiveness of training programmes on mental health outcomes including resilience, depression, anxiety and perceived stress. A comprehensive search of EBSCO, ProQuest and Web of Science was conducted for studies written in English from 1999 to 2022. Two independent researchers screened 5604 studies. Eligible studies are intervention studies with controlled trials that involved training programmes to improve participants’ mental health and reported at least one of the following outcomes: resilience, depression, anxiety and perceived stress. The meta-analysis estimated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for each of the four outcomes. A total of 12 studies, involving 2298 police personnel from 8 countries, met the criteria for inclusion and quality assessment. The training programmes of the eligible studies varied in training approaches, duration, total sessions and follow-up periods. The results suggest that training programmes have a statistically significant moderate effect on depression (SMD=−0.47, 95% CI=−0.73 to −0.22) and anxiety (SMD=−0.40, 95% CI=−0.73 to −0.06), while the effects on resilience (SMD=1.03, 95% CI=−0.36 to 2.41) and perceived stress (SMD=−1.03, 95% CI=−2.15 to 0.08) are not statistically significant. This study highlights the role of primary prevention approaches in supporting officers’ mental health by showing that training programmes are effective in mitigating the risk of depression and anxiety.
- Mental Health
- Occupational Health
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Contributors Conceptualisation: Y-FL. Design: Y-FL. Drafting of the manuscript: Y-FL. Acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data: Y-FL and KP. Statistical analysis: Y-FL. Critical revisions of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Y-FL and KP.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.