43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prevalence of Mental Illness and Mental Health Care Use Among Police Officers

      research-article
      , MPH, PhD 1 , , , MPH 1 , , MS, PhD 2 , , MPH 1 , , PhD 3
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What is the prevalence of mental illness and mental health care use among police officers at a large, urban police department?

          Findings

          In this survey study of 434 police officers, 12% had a lifetime mental health diagnosis and 26% reported current symptoms of mental illness. Of these officers, 17% had sought mental health care services in the past 12 months, but officers reported interest in help if a few key concerns were met, including confidentiality assurance.

          Meaning

          The findings suggest that routine mental health screening may be needed in law enforcement agencies to systematically identify and refer officers to mental health care services.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Limited literature has characterized patterns of mental illnesses and barriers in seeking mental health care among police officers.

          Objectives

          To assess the prevalence of mental illness (diagnosis) and symptoms of mental illness, evaluate the characteristics of officers interested in seeking mental health care, and characterize perceptions of mental health care use.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This survey study was conducted among officers at a large police department in Dallas–Fort Worth, Texas. Focus group sessions were conducted from April 1, 2019, to November 30, 2019, and the survey was conducted from January 1 to February 27, 2020. A total of 446 sworn, employed patrol officers who were present during the recruitment briefing were eligible to participate in surveys and focus groups.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Officers reported lifetime or current diagnosis of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as current mental health symptoms (using validated screeners of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation or self-harm) and mental health care use in the past 12 months. Focus group data were collected to contextualize mental health care use. Logistic regression analyses were used for quantitative data, and focus groups were iteratively coded by 4 coders using inductive and deductive thematic identification.

          Results

          Of the 446 officers invited to participate, 434 (97%) completed the survey (mean [SD] age, 37 [10] years; 354 [82%] male; 217 White [50%]). Of these officers, 19 (17%) had sought mental health care services in the past 12 months. A total of 54 officers (12%) reported a lifetime mental health diagnosis, and 114 (26%) had positive screening results for current mental illness symptoms. Among officers with positive screening results, the odds of interest in using mental health services was significantly higher for officers with suicidal ideation or self-harm than for those who did not (adjusted odds ratio, 7.66; 95% CI, 1.70-34.48). Five focus groups were conducted with 18 officers and found 4 primary barriers in accessing mental health services: (1) inability to identify when they are experiencing a mental illness, (2) concerns about confidentiality, (3) belief that psychologists cannot relate to their occupation, and (4) stigma that officers who seek mental health services are not fit for duty.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          The study found that although few officers were seeking treatment, they were interested in seeking help, particularly those with suicidal ideation or self-harm. Additional interventions appear to be needed to systematically identify and refer officers to health care services while mitigating their concerns, such as fear of confidentiality breach.

          Abstract

          This survey study assesses the prevalence of mental illness and mental health care use among police officers at a large, urban police department in the US.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5): Development and Evaluation Within a Veteran Primary Care Sample.

          Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is associated with increased health care utilization, medical morbidity, and tobacco and alcohol use. Consequently, screening for PTSD has become increasingly common in primary care clinics, especially in Veteran healthcare settings where trauma exposure among patients is common.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Mental, Physical, and Behavioral Outcomes Associated With Perceived Work Stress in Police Officers

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Single session debriefing after psychological trauma: a meta-analysis.

              Despite conflicting research findings and uncertain efficacy, single session debriefing is standard clinical practice after traumatic events. We aimed to assess the efficacy of this intervention in prevention of chronic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and other disorders after trauma. In a meta-analysis, we selected appropriate studies from databases (Medline Advanced, PsychINFO, and PubMed), the Journal of Traumatic Stress, and reference lists of articles and book chapters. Inclusion criteria were that single session debriefing had been done within 1 month after trauma, symptoms were assessed with widely accepted clinical outcome measures, and data from psychological assessments that had been done before (pretest data) and after (post-test data) interventions and were essential for calculation of effect sizes had been reported. We included seven studies in final analyses, in which there were five critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) interventions, three non-CISD interventions, and six no-intervention controls. Non-CISD interventions and no intervention improved symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, but CISD did not improve symptoms (weighted mean effect sizes 0.65 [95% CI 0.14-1.16], 0.47 [0.28-0.66], and 0.13 [-0.29 to 0.55], respectively). CISD did not improve natural recovery from other trauma-related disorders (0.12 [-0.22 to 0.47]). CISD and non-CISD interventions do not improve natural recovery from psychological trauma.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                7 October 2020
                October 2020
                7 October 2020
                : 3
                : 10
                : e2019658
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, Dallas
                [2 ]Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute, Dallas, Texas
                [3 ]Psychological Services, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 26, 2020.
                Published: October 7, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19658
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Jetelina KK et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Katelyn K. Jetelina, MPH, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, 6011 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75235 ( katelyn.k.jetelina@ 123456uth.tmc.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Jetelina and Ms Molsberry had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Jetelina, Gonzalez, Hall.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Jetelina, Molsberry, Gonzalez, Beauchamp.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Jetelina, Molsberry.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Jetelina, Molsberry.
                Obtained funding: Jetelina.
                Supervision: Jetelina, Gonzalez.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant K01-OH011532 from the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi200686
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19658
                7542299
                33026452
                f2eb802f-e849-4c2a-88b7-3857d8ff9d9d
                Copyright 2020 Jetelina KK et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 12 May 2020
                : 26 July 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article