Profiling and predicting help-seeking behaviour among trauma-exposed UK firefighters

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic information (N = 1,282)

Characteristic	N	Percent
Sex:
Female	53	4.1%
Male	1229	95.9%
Age:
18–30	55	4.3%
31–40	205	16.0%
41–50	535	41.7%
51–60	376	29.3%
60+	111	8.7%
Marital status:
Single	60	4.7%
Currently in relationship	1111	86.7%
Divorced, widowed, separated	111	8.7%
Education level:
No education	68	5.3%
Secondary School	690	53.8%
First year university (HNC)	244	19.0%
Bachelors or higher	280	21.8%
Years in service:
0–10 years	136	10.6%
11–20 years	388	30.3%
21–30 years	603	47.0%
31+ years	155	12.1%

Table 2. Types of help-seeking

	Help-seeking options	Collation	N (%)
1)	Referred by manager to Occupational Health Dept. (or equivalent) within fire service dept.		93 (7.2%)
2)	Self-referred to Occupational Health Dept. (or equivalent) within fire service dept.		116 (9%)
3)	Self-referred to own GP/Doctor		130 (10.1%)
4)	Sought support from spouse		972 (75.8%)
5)	Sought support from siblings		118 (9.2%)
6)	Sought support from parents		158 (12.3%)
7)	Sought support from friends outside of work		470 (36.6%)
8)	Self-referred to external psychological support services		143 (11.1%)
9a)	Items 9,10, 11 collated to: Informal one-to-one talk with a colleague and/or manager	9) Talked the incident over with a colleague	680 (53%)
		10) Talked the incident over with line manager on a one-to-one basis
		11) Talked the incident over with a different manager on a one-to-one basis
10a)	Items 12, 13, 14 collated to: Informal talk with a group of colleagues and/or manager(s)	12) Talked about the incident with a group of colleagues (informally over tea/coffee)	798 (62.2%)
		13) Group discussion of the incident with line manager & other colleagues (over tea)
		14) Group discussion with colleagues and a different manager (over tea)
11a)	Items 15, 16 collated to: Formal individual discussion with manager	15) Formal discussion with line manager (closed door one-to-one conversation)	37 (2.9%)
		16) Formal discussion with other manager (closed door one-to-one conversation)
12a)	Items 17, 18 collated to: Formal group discussion (eg. psychological debriefing)	17) Formal group discussion with line manager and colleagues (eg. Psychological debriefing, TRiM session)	88 (6.9%)
		18) Formal group discussion with colleagues and other managers involved (eg. Psychological debriefing, TRiM session)

Participants could pick multiple help-seeking options.

Table 3. Fit indices for the latent class analyses

Model	LRx^2 (df)	AIC	BIC	SSABIC	LRT p	Entropy
Two Class	1332.754	11988.377	12117.398	12037.986	416.004	0.733
	(4051)				p < 0.001
Three Class	1036.754	11706.324	11902.436	11781.729	304.779	0.781
	(4039)				p < 0.001
Four Class	861.918	11527.686	11790.889	11628.888	202.463	0.771
	(4027)				p > 0.05
Five Class	800.158	11410.501	11740.795	11537.499	141.663	0.769
	(4020)				p < 0.05
Six Class	715.968	11350.210	11747.595	11503.004	85.374	0.760
	(4007)				p > 0.05

LRx² = likelihood ratio chi-square; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SSABIC = sample size adjusted BIC; LRT = Lo-Mendell-Rubin’s adjusted likelihood ratio test; Best fitting model in bold

Figure 1. Latent class analysis profile plot

Figure 2. Separate graph for each latent class

Table 4. Regression coefficients for demographic variables predicting latent classes

	Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals)
Predictor	Class 2 self-referral to external psych support	Class 3 friends support	Class 4 spousal support	Class 5 social support
Marital status
Single	6.030* (1.177–30.902)	2.303 (0.551–9.626)	1.574 (0.377–6.576)	3.946 (0.919–16.950)
Relationship	1.966 (0.813–4.753)	0.675 (0.347–1.311)	3.349***(1.789–6.267)	2.648* (1.253–5.596)
Post relationship	b	b	b	b
Years in service
0–10 years	7.314* (1.058–50.571)	2.146 (0.357–12.887)	4.978 (0.996–24.885)	6.529* (1.188–35.890)
11–20 years	1.596 (0.518–4.917)	0.779 (0.286–2.122)	1.233 (0.525–2.894)	1.453 (0.535–3.947)
21–30 years	0.995 (0.386–2.564)	0.813 (0.363–1.822)	0.962 (0.472–1.963)	1.118 (0.475–2.631)
31+ years	b	b	b	b
Age
18–30	0.021* (0.001–0.422)	0.168 (0.015–1.844)	0.201 (0.026–1.41)	2.540 (0.275–23.448)
31-40	0.166* (0.022–0.606)	0.898 (0.205–3.933)	0.411 (0.111–1.526)	2.936 (0.592–14.556)
41-50	0.205* (0.061–0.696)	0.319 (0.100–1.023)	0.279* (0.098–0.789)	1.662 (0.425–6.506)
51-60	0.257* (0.077–0.856)	0.560 (0.179–1.748)	0.347* (0.124–0.973)	1.507 (0.388–5.856)
60+	b	b	b	b
Sex
Female	0.818 (0.255–2.624)	0.185* (0.046–0.754)	0.33* (0.134–0.836)	0.627 (0.241–1.635)
Male	b	b	b	b
Education
Bachelors or higher	0.880 (0.251–3.091)	1.230 (0.392–3.859)	1.345 (0.507–3.566)	0.738 (0.239–2.279)
First year HNC	1.067 (0.297–3.835)	1.309 (0.405–4.230)	1.759 (0.651–4.757)	1.080 (0.344–3.388)
Secondary	1.355 (0.417–4.408)	1.739 (0.584–5.182)	2.334 (0.916–5.945)	1.539 (0.526–4.509)
No Education	b	b	b	b

Two comparisons were made. Each class was compared to the baseline class 1 ‘General Support’ (seeking help from all avenues), and b = comparison group.

* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.