CPE Clin Psychol Eur Clinical Psychology in Europe Clin. Psychol. Eur. 2625-3410 PsychOpen cpe.6133 10.32872/cpe.6133 Research Articles Materials Coping in the Emergency Medical Services: Associations With the Personnel’s Stress, Self-Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Health Coping Strategies in Emergency Medical Services Coping in the Emergency Medical Services: Associations with the personnel’s stress, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and health https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2144-7832RojasRoberto*1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8414-3812HickmannMaxi1 WolfSvenja1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7847-1847KolassaIris-Tatjana2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4128-9627BehnkeAlexander2 Weise Cornelia University Psychotherapeutic Outpatient Clinic, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany Clinical and Biological Psychology, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany University Psychotherapeutic Outpatient Clinic, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Schaffnerstraße 3, 89073 Ulm, Germany. Phone: +49/731-50 31601, Fax: +49/731-50 1231601. roberto.rojas@uni-ulm.de 31032022 2022 4 1e6133 12 02 2021 16 01 2022 2022Rojas, Hickmann, Wolf et al.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background

Emergency Medical Services personnel (EMSP) are recurrently exposed to chronic and traumatic stressors in their occupation. Effective coping with occupational stressors plays a key role in enabling their health and overall well-being. In this study, we examined the habitual use of coping strategies in EMSP and analyzed associations of coping with the personnel’s health and well-being.

 Method

A total of N = 106 German Red Cross EMSP participated in a cross-sectional survey involving standardized questionnaires to report habitual use of different coping strategies (using the Brief-COPE), their work-related stress, work-related self-efficacy, job satisfaction, as well as mental and physical stress symptoms.

 Results

A confirmatory factor analysis corroborated seven coping factors which have been identified in a previous study among Italian emergency workers. Correlation analyses indicated the coping factor “self-criticism” is associated with more work-related stress, lower job satisfaction, and higher depressive, posttraumatic, and physical stress symptoms. Although commonly viewed as adaptive coping, the coping factors “support/venting”, “active coping/planning”, “humor”, “religion”, and “positive reappraisal” were not related to health and well-being in EMSP. Exploratory correlation analyses suggested that only “acceptance” was linked to better well-being and self-efficacy in EMSP.

 Conclusion

Our results emphasize the need for in-depth investigation of adaptive coping in EMSP to advance occupation-specific prevention measures.

 Highlights

Previously reported seven factor structure of BriefCOPE was confirmed in German EMS personnel.

Adaptive coping factors (e.g., support/venting) are not linked to better health and well-being.

Self-criticism correlates with lower job satisfaction, higher stress, and more stress symptoms.

Acceptance is associated with less stress symptoms and higher self-efficacy.

Emergency Medical Servicescoping strategiesstressjob satisfactionwork-related self-efficacy

Emergency Medical Services personnel (EMSP) are recurrently confronted with traumatic events during medical rescue missions and undergo adverse working conditions such as shiftwork, time pressure, insufficient sleep, and social conflicts (Donnelly & Siebert, 2009; Karutz et al., 2013; Sterud et al., 2006). These factors pose a high emotional stress on EMSP (Johnson et al., 2005; Karrasch et al., 2020; Schmid et al., 2008), which can compromise their job satisfaction (Boudreaux et al., 1997; Portero de la Cruz et al., 2020; Sterud et al., 2011) and may trigger mental health problems, including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and alcohol abuse (Berger et al., 2012; Kleim & Westphal, 2011; Petrie et al., 2018; Sterud et al., 2006; S. L. Wagner et al., 2020) as well as physical health problems (Aasa et al., 2005; Bentley & Levine, 2016; Friedenberg et al., 2022; Hegg-Deloye et al., 2014).

To maintain their health and work capacity, EMSP are required to employ effective strategies to cope with chronic stress and recurrent exposure to traumatic events on duty (Arble & Arnetz, 2017; Karrasch et al., 2020). Coping is defined as a person’s effort to deal with external or internal demands that are perceived as stressful or possibly exceed the individual’s resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Research has described various strategies to cope with stress. Some of them such as social support seeking, acceptance, and positive reappraisal are viewed as adaptive in reducing stress and benefiting health and well-being (Holton et al., 2016; Moritz et al., 2016). Conversely, strategies involving self-criticism, denial, dissociation, and avoidance are viewed as maladaptive for stress management and can lead to impaired health and well-being (Holton et al., 2016; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2009).

In the context of their work, EMSP and other frontline workers are confronted with high emotional demands and physical stressors due to shift work, time pressure, high responsibility, and recurrent traumatic event exposure. As a result, EMSP may find certain coping strategies not helpful in handling their work-related demands, although in other contexts, the same strategies may be highly adaptive, and vice versa. In this line, growing evidence shows that coping strategies may differ in their actual adaptiveness depending on the context of their application (Cheng et al., 2014; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Levy-Gigi et al., 2016).

“Maladaptive” Coping in EMSP

There is consistent evidence that “maladaptive” coping strategies are linked to poorer well-being and health in EMSP. Self-criticism is linked to more burnout, compassion fatigue, depression, and PTSD symptoms, and lower compassion satisfaction (Boland et al., 2019; Boudreaux et al., 1997; Cicognani et al., 2009; Kirby et al., 2011; Prati et al., 2011). Furthermore, avoidant coping such as substance (ab)use and denial was linked to poorer mental health outcomes in the long-term such as elevated PTSD symptoms (Arble & Arnetz, 2017; Cicognani et al., 2009; Kerai et al., 2017; Kirby et al., 2011; LeBlanc et al., 2011; Portero de la Cruz et al., 2020; Regehr et al., 2002). Despite negative consequences, EMSP engage in avoidant coping because these strategies allow to instantly alleviate emotional strain (Levy-Gigi et al., 2016; Regehr et al., 2002). For example, it was shown that EMSP use emotional avoidance after critical mission incidents (Figley, 2008).

 “Adaptive” Coping in EMSP

Previous studies reported that coping strategies, which are assumed adaptive in the general population, show inconsistent or even negative associations with the well-being and health of EMSP (Cicognani et al., 2009; Prati et al., 2011; Raynor & Hicks, 2019). Upon exposure to stressful events, EMSP may profit from social support to receive emotional support and relief (Alexander & Klein, 2001; ALmutairi & El Mahalli, 2020; Boland et al., 2019; Donnelly & Siebert, 2009). In EMSP, social support has been associated with lower risk of depressive, burnout, and trauma-related symptoms (Boland et al., 2019; Essex & Scott, 2008; Feldman et al., 2021; Fjeldheim et al., 2014; Guilaran et al., 2018; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2010; Wild et al., 2016). However, other studies found that social support did not moderate the negative influence of stressful mission experiences on PTSD symptoms (C.-M. Chang et al., 2008). Higher social support was also linked to burnout and compassion fatigue among EMSP (Cicognani et al., 2009; Prati et al., 2011).

Moreover, EMSP may cope actively with stress through focusing on the next step in planning and actively solving problems (Boland et al., 2019; Regehr et al., 2002). Active coping/planning was associated with lower stress levels (Brown et al., 2002; Jamal et al., 2017) and stronger posttraumatic growth (Kirby et al., 2011) in EMSP. However, Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) theorized that the effectivity of active coping depends on the controllability of stressors. EMSP are regularly confronted with critical mission events and adverse working conditions they cannot fully control. Therefore, active coping may be ineffective or possibly counterproductive in certain situations. Indeed, previous studies linked active coping to higher levels of stress and burnout in emergency workers (Cicognani et al., 2009; Prati et al., 2011).

It is proposed that humor enables EMSP to experience critical situations as less serious and threatening (Moran, 2002). Healthcare workers who used humor perceived work-related situations less stressful (Canestrari et al., 2021), and the use of humor was linked to less PTSD symptoms among firefighters (Sliter et al., 2014). However, humor is a very complex construct with various subtypes which may have opposite effects in handling stress (Leist & Müller, 2013; Martin et al., 2003). Indeed, humor was also associated with higher burnout levels in EMSP (Cicognani et al., 2009; Prati et al., 2011).

As an emotion-focused coping strategy, religion has been linked to less burnout symptoms (Boland et al., 2019) and higher levels of posttraumatic growth (Ogińska-Bulik & Zadworna-Cieślak, 2018), but also with more burnout symptoms and compassion fatigue in EMSP (Cicognani et al., 2009; Prati et al., 2011). In their concept of posttraumatic growth, Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996) assume increasing spirituality as an adaptive consequence of traumatic experiences. Accordingly, positive associations between stress symptoms and religious coping in EMSP could indicate emerging posttraumatic growth.

Moreover, EMSP reported to manage their work-related stress through acceptance of negative emotions as well as positive reappraisal (Boland et al., 2019; Kirby et al., 2011). Acceptance was consistently linked to increased posttraumatic growth (Kirby et al., 2011; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2009) and milder posttraumatic stress symptoms in EMSP (Zhao et al., 2020). Positive reappraisal was associated with more burnout and compassion fatigue symptoms (ALmutairi & El Mahalli, 2020; Cicognani et al., 2009) but was also related with stronger posttraumatic growth (Kirby et al., 2011).

 Adaptive Coping and Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to the deep conviction that one has sufficient resources and abilities to cope successfully with adversity (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy determines the individual’s approach and self-perception when coping with stressors. Thereby, it influences execution of coping strategies as well as the persistency of coping efforts (Bandura, 1997). As a result, self-efficacious individuals experience job stress less threatening, working conditions more positively, and focus more on available resources (e.g., social support) (Consiglio, Borgogni, Alessandri, & Schaufeli, 2013). Studies in the EMS found that personnel with longer work experience report higher self-efficacy, which contributed to less burnout and compassion fatigue as well as more compassion satisfaction (Cicognani et al., 2009; Groß et al., 2004; Prati et al., 2010). In nurses, the beneficial effect of self-efficacy on health and well-being was partially mediated through problem-focused coping (Chang & Edwards, 2015).

 Present Study

Coping behavior of EMSP may change with increasing professional experience and/or as a function of the recurrent exposure to stress and traumatic events (Essex & Scott, 2008). Through habituating with their work, EMSP will increasingly engage in coping strategies they experience as helpful in alleviating stress in the short-term (Figley, 2008). Resulting coping habits will conceivably differ from those of the general population as well as of occupations with other demands. Therefore, Cicognani et al. (2009) explored specific factors of coping strategies in 764 Italian emergency workers, including EMSP, firefighters, and civil-protection personnel. From the 14 coping strategies assessed with the Brief-COPE, an exploratory factor analysis extracted seven coping factors, i.e., support/venting, active coping, positive reappraisal, humor, religion, self-distraction, and self-criticism, which showed complex associations with the personnel’s quality of life and mental health.

The coping factor model identified by Cicognani et al. (2009) is yet to be confirmed. With this study, we tested whether Cicognani et al.’s factor model fits the coping behavior of German EMSP. Moreover, we hypothesized “maladaptive” coping (e.g., self-distraction, self-criticism) is linked to higher perceived stress, lower job satisfaction, and more mental and physical stress symptoms. Conversely, we expected “adaptive” coping (e.g., support/venting, active coping, positive reappraisal, humor, religion) to be linked to better health and well-being. Additionally, we hypothesized that EMSP with longer work experience show higher work-related self-efficacy. Higher self-efficacy was expected to correlate with higher job satisfaction, lower work-related stress, and fewer mental and physical symptoms.

 Method Procedure

The authors conducted an in-house training module offered seven times within three months at two ambulance stations of the local German Red Cross (GRC) division. Of the division’s 318 employees, 241 attended the training and were invited to participate in this study. Interested EMSP left their email address, and via email they received the link to the study survey. At the beginning of the survey, participants were informed about the study aims and procedures. A total of 115 employees declared their written informed consent and participated in the survey (46.6% response rate) that assessed sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender) and exposure to traumatic events, personality traits, mental and physical health conditions as well as coping strategies using standardized questionnaires. The survey also assessed other health-relevant factors such as emotion regulation and sense of coherence that were reported in previous studies (Behnke, Conrad, et al., 2019; Gärtner et al., 2019). The survey took approximately one hour for completion. Participants received no remuneration. The study protocol was approved by the Ulm University ethics committee.

 Participants

Regarding the variables investigated in this study, complete data were available from N = 106 EMSP (63.2% men), presenting 33.3% of the local GRC divisions’ total workforce. Participating EMSP were 18 to 61 years of age, Mdn (IQR) = 26 (15.8), and their work experience ranged from one month to 35 years, Mdn (IQR) = 3.3 (10.3) years. Additional sociodemographic characteristics are detailed in Table 1. Study participants corresponded well to the entirety of local EMS employees in terms of sex, stationing, and EMS work experience. Small differences occurred regarding employment type and age.

Demographic Sample Characteristics Compared to the Local EMS Personnel
Demographic Variable Study cohort
 Local EMS employees
 Statistical test
n % n % Test statistic p Effect size
Total 106 33.3# 318
Sex – .229 -.061
Male 67 63.2 222 69.8
Female 39 36.8 96 30.2
Ambulance station – 1 -.003
Ulm 74 69.8 223 70.1
Heidenheim 32 30.2 95 29.9
Employment form χ2(2) = 11.51 .003 .165
Salaried 80 75.5 198 62.3
Voluntary 16 15.1 101 31.8
In apprentice 10 9.4 19 6.0
Professional qualification
EMT–paramedic (“Notfallsanitäter”) 64 60.4 – –
EMT–basic (“Rettungssanitäter”) 32 30.2 – –
EMT–paramedic trainee 10 9.4 – –
Family status
Single 50 47.2 – –
Divorced 8 7.5 – –
Partnership/married 48 45.3 – –
M (SD) Mdn M (SD) Mdn
Age [years] 29.8 (10.9) 26.0 32.1 (11.1) 27.5 U = 13906 .007 -.131
EMS working experience [years] 7.5 (8.7) 3.3 5.7 (5.5) 3.8 U = 16172.5 .629 -.023

Note. #proportion of total staff. Population and sample frequency distributions were compared using Fisher’s exact tests and χ2 tests, where applicable, and φ as effect-size measure. Continuous variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U-tests using Cohen’s r as effect-size measure.

 Measures

Coping strategies were measured with the 28-item German Brief-COPE (Knoll et al., 2005). The Brief-COPE subscales’ internal consistency ranged from Cronbach’s α = .43–.89. As an exception, the subscale behavioral disengagement showed an inacceptable internal consistency of α = -.04 (see Supplementary Materials, Table X1, for details).

Perceived work-related stress was recorded with an EMS-specific questionnaire (Gärtner et al., 2019). On eight items, participants reported their perceived stress due to alarms, shift work, etc. on a 5-point Likert scale anchored at 0 (never experienced) and 4 (very bothering). Reponses were aggregated to a sum score (range: 0–32; Cronbach’s α = .77).

Depressive symptoms were measured with the 9-item German Patient Health Questionnaire scale for depression (PHQ-9; Löwe et al., 2002). Responses are recorded on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (almost every day) and were aggregated to a sum score (range: 0–27; Cronbach’s α = .83).

Posttraumatic symptoms were assessed with the German PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; Krüger-Gottschalk et al., 2017). Participants were requested to recall their most stressful life event. As previously reported, 53% of the EMSP participating in this study encountered their most stressful life events in the line of their duty (Behnke, Rojas, et al., 2019). With eight qualitative items, the PCL-5 evaluates whether the most stressful life event fulfils the DSM-5 criteria of a traumatic event. On 20 items, participants rated the severity of their posttraumatic stress symptoms on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very strong). Severity ratings were aggregated to a sum score (range: 0–80, Cronbach’s α = .91).

Physical ailments were assessed using the 15-item German Patient Health Questionnaire scale for physical symptoms (PHQ-15; Löwe et al., 2002). The item asking for menstrual pain was excluded for reasons of gender comparability. Responses are recorded on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 2 (very strong). The sum score of all items represents the severity of physical ailments (range: 0–30, Cronbach’s α = .84).

Job satisfaction was evaluated using a subscale of the German Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1979). On three items, participants rated their job satisfaction on a 4-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Responses were combined as sum score (range: 3–12, Cronbach’s α = .69).

Work-related self-efficacy was assessed using the two items of the Professional Self-efficacy Expectation Scale with the highest item-total correlation (Schyns & Collani, 2014). Responses were recorded on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very strong) and combined to a sum score (range: 0–8, Cronbach’s α = .67).

 Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed in R 3.6.2 (R Core Team, 2019). To examine whether the factor structure reported in Cicognani et al. (2009) fits the present data, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). As a majority of the Brief-COPE items did not follow uni- or multivariate normal distribution (Energy test: E = 2.44, p < .001), we used pairwise maximum likelihood (PML) estimators as a computationally less intense alternative to full information maximum likelihood (FIML) (Katsikatsou et al., 2012). The absolute χ2 statistic and its p-value (p > .05), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ .06) and its 90% confidence interval (CI), and robust versions of the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR ≤ .08), the comparative fit index (CFI ≥ .95), and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI ≥ .95) were used as model fit criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Convergent and discriminant factor validity was examined applying the criteria by Fornell and Larcker (1981), and Bollen’s ω (Raykov, 2001) quantified the internal factor consistency. Bivariate correlations were analyzed using nonparametric Spearman correlations because several variables were not normally distributed. p-Values were corrected for multiple testing using the false discovery rate (FDR) (Benjamini & Yekutieli, 2001).

 Results Confirmatory Factor Analyses

All Brief-COPE subscales were non-normal distributed, and some subscales were strongly right-skewed, that is, these strategies were almost never used by our study cohort (Table X1, Supplementary Materials). This was also observed by Cicognani et al. (2009), and in accordance with their procedure, we disregarded the items 3/8 (denial: skew = 2.32), 6/16 (behavioral disengagement: skew = 1.45), and 4/11 (substance use: skew = 2.10) in the CFA. Additionally, the scales self-blame (skew = 1.27) and religion (skew = 1.87) displayed a strong right skew in our sample. We nevertheless retained these items to allow testing the adequacy of Cicognani et al.’s factor model in our data.

The CFA revealed the model by Cicognani et al. (2009) fits our data relatively well: robust-χ2(5.54) = 9.47, p = .120; CFIrob = .926; TLIrob = .911; SRMRrob = .069; RMSEA < .001, 90% CI [.001, .041], pRMSEA = .988. The first factor (Figure 1) comprised the six items of the subscales Emotional support, Instrumental support, and Venting (standardized factor loadings: β = .58–.89, p’s < .001) with an internal factor consistency of ω = .89.

Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Examining the Fit of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Cicognani et al.’s (2009)</xref> Seven-Factor Model of Coping to the Data of this Study

Note. N = 106. Values on paths indicate standardized regression coefficients (β) and values on covariance paths indicate significant factor correlations (r). Italic values above the items display the explained variance per item (R2).

The second factor comprised the items of Active coping and Planning (β = .55–.70, p’s < .001; ω = .71). The third factor presented the Humor subscale (β = .73–.97, p’s < .001; ω = .83), the fourth Religion (β = .72–.87, p’s < .001; ω = .78), the fifth Self-distraction (β = .56–.70, p’s < .001; ω = .58), the sixth Self-criticism (β = .81–.86, p’s < .001; ω = .83), and the seventh Positive reappraisal (β = .36–.76, p’s < .005; ω = .49).

Examining the factors’ convergent and discriminant validity (Table 2) revealed that support/venting, humor, religion, and self-criticism are clearly distinguishable albeit correlated factors. Conversely, the items of active coping/planning share considerable variance with the items of self-distraction and positive reappraisal, indicating that their factors are not clearly separable. As a result, these factors had a low internal factor consistency (see Table 2).

Indicators of Internal Factor Consistency ω (at Diagonal), Convergent and Discriminant Validity Along With Factor Correlations
Coping Factor F1 F2† F3 F4 F5† F6 F7†
F1 Support/Venting .89 .60*** -.17 .37*** .40* .28* .54***
F2 Active coping/planning .71 -.04 .19 .85*** .48*** .65***
F3 Humor .83 -.16 .22 -.11 .19
F4 Religion .78 .02 .06 .28
F5 Self-distraction .58 .42** .51**
F6 Self-criticism .83 .16
F7 Positive reappraisal .49
Average variance extracted (AVE) .576 .380 .709 .650 .420 .705 .354
Maximum shared variance (MSV) .356 .724 .047 .139 .724 .226 .422

Note. An average variance extracted of AVE > .50 indicates sufficient convergent factor validity (i.e., more than 50% of the items’ variances converged on their common factor). Satisfactory discriminant factor validity is assumed when the maximum shared variance MSV < AVE. Factors indicated with † violate aforementioned criteria.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed, corrected for multiple testing with FDR.

 Correlation of Coping Factors With Well-Being and Health

Correlation analyses (Table 3) indicated that support/venting was less used by older EMSP, whereas no associations emerged with other studies variables. Active coping/planning, religion, self-distraction, and positive reappraisal were not related to any study variable. In trend, EMSP with more work experience also reported more self-criticism (pFDR = .102), and frequent use of self-criticism was positively associated with higher perceived stress, more mental and physical symptoms, and lower job satisfaction.

Spearman Rank Correlations (N = 106)
Coping Factor Age Sexa EMS work experience PCL-5 PHQ-15 PHQ-9 Perceived Stress Job Satisfactionb Work-related self-efficacy
F1 Support/Venting -.28* -.07 -.08 .09 -.07 -.15 .07 .17 .14
F2 Active coping/Planning .05 .05 .05 .23 .05 .02 .16 -.07 .11
F3 Humor .15 .24 .11 -.01 .08 .09 -.03 .00 .34*
F4 Religion -.10 -.10 .00 .26 .04 .00 .13 .10 -.08
F5 Self-distraction .11 .13 .10 .16 .01 .01 .10 -.05 .26
F6 Self-criticism .09 -.02 .22 .49*** .32* .34* .27* -.27* -.22
F7 Positive reappraisal -.10 -.02 -.10 .17 -.02 -.05 .09 .12 .13
Work-related self-efficacy .21 .29* .18 -.22 -.23 -.26 -.04 .24

aPositive coefficient indicate higher values in men than women. btwo missing values.

*p < .050. ***p < .001, two-tailed, corrected for multiple testing with FDR.

These associations were also supported by the zero-order correlations between the Brief-COPE subscales and the study variables (Table X2, Supplementary Materials). Additionally, we observed relevant correlations of the Brief-COPE’s acceptance subscale, which has been neglected in the CFA in order to test the factor solution reported by Cicognani et al. (2009). In detail, EMSP in our sample who reported higher acceptance showed less stress-related symptoms (PCL-5: rS = -.21, pFDR = .138; PHQ-15: rS = -.31, pFDR = .020; PHQ-9: rS = -.32, pFDR = .018).

 Work-Related Self-Efficacy and Coping

Male (pFDR = .037) and older EMSP (pFDR = .102) reported higher work-related self-efficacy, which was associated in trend with higher job satisfaction (pFDR = .081) and less posttraumatic (pFDR = .101), depressive (pFDR = .053), and physical stress symptoms (pFDR = .090, cf. Table 3). Moreover, self-efficacy correlated with a conceivably more adaptive coping behavior, in a way that EMSP with higher self-efficacy were prone to use less self-criticism in trend (pFDR = .102) as well as more humor (see Table 3) and acceptance (rS = .38, pFDR = .002; Table X2, Supplementary Materials).

 Discussion

We investigated habitual coping behavior in a cohort of German EMSP and its relevance for the personnel’s health and well-being. Thereby, we replicated the seven-factor structure of Brief-COPE items which has been previously identified by Cicognani et al. (2009) in Italian emergency workers. Among these coping factors, self-criticism showed significant associations with stress, job satisfaction, and stress symptoms of EMSP.

Similar to the Italian emergency workers (Cicognani et al., 2009), our cohort of German EMSP rarely engaged in denial, behavioral disengagement, and substance (ab)use when coping with stress. Unlike the Italian sample, however, our cohort of EMSP almost never coped through religion. Cross-cultural studies indicate that reliance on religion in coping with adversity and stress varies across countries (Chai et al., 2012; Shirazi et al., 2011). Therefore, differences in the use of coping strategies between our study cohort and that of Cicognani et al. (2009) may result from cultural differences between Italian and German rescue personnel. Future cross-cultural research should compare coping in frontline workers with different cultural and social background.

Consistent with Cicognani et al. (2009), our CFA corroborated a factor unifying items of support seeking and venting, indicating that EMSP seek the support of others to share their unpleasant emotions and find comfort. Unexpectedly, this factor was not associated with better health or well-being, adding to previous inconsistent findings on the adaptiveness of social support for the well-being of EMSP (Boland et al., 2019; Essex & Scott, 2008; Feldman et al., 2021; Fjeldheim et al., 2014; Kleim & Westphal, 2011; Kshtriya et al., 2020; Wild et al., 2016). One reason for these heterogeneous findings could be the timing of social support: In their review, Wagner at al. (2016) conclude that pre-trauma social support can enhance resilience against PTSD, while post-trauma social support appears to promote posttraumatic growth. Conceivably, EMSP actively seek social support when feeling particularly stressed, and this adaptive behavior could enable personal growth. Moreover, previous research has differently defined and operationalized social support: While we included support and venting into one factor (cf. Cicognani et al., 2009), other studies focused on received and/or perceived social support by different groups, e.g., family, colleagues (Fjeldheim et al., 2014; Wild et al., 2016).

As previously reported (Essex & Scott, 2008), we found that older EMSP reported less support seeking and a lower tendency to communicate their feelings. Senior EMSP with many years of work experience are likely to have encountered more traumatic mission events, and studies showed that after highly aversive missions, a relevant proportion of EMSP refrains from talking to their colleagues to avoid showing personal weakness, possible consequences of perceived mistakes, and “unnecessarily” raising their colleagues’ emotional burden (Häller et al., 2009; Richter, 2014). This behavior could lead to social distancing and isolation in the long-term. However, in Western societies, there is a general trend toward decreasing social support networks across the lifespan (Nicolaisen & Thorsen, 2017), and social isolation particularly affects men (e.g., Gurung, Taylor, & Seeman, 2003; Walen & Lachman, 2000). In our cohort, the correlation of higher age and work experience with decreased social support/venting could be specifically pronounced, as the EMS has been primarily a “male profession”, and our study participants with longer work experience were almost exclusively men. Preventive measures to maintain EMSPs’ health could aim to impart social and emotional competencies among colleagues and supervisors, establish an institutional support culture, and develop structured professional counselling interventions for personnel (Wild et al., 2020).

In this sample, using humor as a coping strategy was not associated with well-being and health. Previous evidence on humor in helping profession is mixed. Some studies showed, humor allowed perceiving work less stressful (Canestrari et al., 2021) and was linked to fewer PTSD symptoms (Sliter et al., 2014). Other studies linked humor to higher burnout symptoms (Cicognani et al., 2009; Prati et al., 2011). This inconsistency may originate from different styles of humor which may exert opposite effects in stress coping (Leist & Müller, 2013). Black or “gallows” humor presents a form of emotional avoidance that can help EMSP to quickly distance from adverse experiences (Moran, 2002). However, in the long-term, black humor may establish cynicism towards their patients in EMSP, and this attitude might compromise the emotional support they receive from their family and friends (Rowe & Regehr, 2010). In this study and previous studies (Cicognani et al., 2009; Prati et al., 2011), humor was assessed with two items, thus not allowing to differentiate humor styles. Future studies are required to investigate the role of humor styles more comprehensively to understand its effect on the health and well-being of EMSP.

In our study, the factors active coping/planning and positive reappraisal were unrelated to EMSPs’ well-being and health, whereas previous studies linked active coping to reduced stress (Brown et al., 2002; Jamal et al., 2017; Prati et al., 2011) and fewer stress symptoms (Kirby et al., 2011). Moreover, the inclination to find positive reinterpretations of adverse experiences has been linked to stronger posttraumatic growth (Kirby et al., 2011). In our study, however, the factors overlapped with the EMSPs’ engagement in self-distraction. This suggests that EMSP tend to actively engage in compensatory activities and denying stress through positive reinterpretations in order to distract themselves from work-related stress.

Unlike the classical view of active coping and positive reappraisal as adaptive stress coping, in EMSP, such attempts rather reflect a distraction tendency to achieve short-term stress relief. In par with this, Levy-Gigi et al. (2016) reported firefighters engage in distractive strategies to achieve immediate stress relief, although such distractive coping attempts exert counterproductive effects on the regulation of stress in the long-run (Cicognani et al., 2009; Kirby et al., 2011; LeBlanc et al., 2011). However, in our study, using these strategies seemed to have no implications for the EMSPs’ health status and well-being. Additional research is required to better distinguish the short- or long-term motives of frontline workers to engage in distractive coping strategies.

In addition, active coping aims to overcome a stressful situation through planning and problem solving. Thus, the actual effectiveness of this strategy depends on whether stressors are actually controllable and changeable (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). As EMSP regularly face adverse situations which they may not be able to control or change, it could be that attempting to actively change uncontrollable problems has no (Gärtner et al., 2019) or even opposite implications for the well-being of EMSP (Cicognani et al., 2009; Prati et al., 2011). Persistent attempts to find solutions for uncontrollable adversity might even initiate rumination (Ayduk & Kross, 2010), which is a major risk factor for developing PTSD, depression, and burnout in EMSP and firefighters (e.g., Bryant & Guthrie, 2007; Gärtner et al., 2019; Wild et al., 2016).

Correspondingly, our results indicate that engaging in self-critical reflections about one’s actions and feelings is associated with poorer health and well-being in EMSP. This result corroborates previous studies implicating self-criticism as a maladaptive coping strategy (Boland et al., 2019; Boudreaux et al., 1997; Cicognani et al., 2009; Kirby et al., 2011; Prati et al., 2011). Self-criticism involves repetitive negative evaluations of one’s own abilities and decisions. In this sense, it is closely related to rumination as the tendency to repeatedly focus mentally on negative emotional experiences as well as their causes and consequences (James et al., 2015). Longitudinal studies are warranted to assess self-criticism and rumination in the prospect of health and well-being in EMSP.

Beyond the coping factors reported by Cicognani et al. (2009), the BriefCOPE subscale acceptance was linked to higher self-efficacy and better well-being in EMSP. This result suits previous findings and meta-analyses which established acceptance as highly adaptive in retaining health upon adverse experiences (Aldao et al., 2010; Kirby et al., 2011; Schäfer et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2020). Acceptance-related elements are featured in several evidence-based therapeutic approaches (e.g., Mentalization-based therapy, Bateman & Fonagy, 2012; Acceptance and commitment therapy, Hayes, 2016), and initial research on stress-preventive trainings in EMSP indicates that imparting strategies to differentiate, name, and accept unpleasant feelings can decrease symptoms of burnout and emotional exhaustion (Buruck & Dörfel, 2018).

Bandura (1997) theorized self-efficacy enhances stress resilience through influencing which and how persistently coping strategies are executed upon stress. Accordingly, self-efficacy was positively linked to problem-focused and active coping and negatively linked to emotion-focused coping in nurses (Chang & Edwards, 2015). Our findings partially corroborate this perspective, as we found EMSP with higher self-efficacy to use less self-criticism when coping with stress. However, self-efficacy was not linked to strategies such as coping/planning or support/venting. Instead, it was linked to acceptance and humor presenting rather emotion-focused coping strategies. Moreover, in line with previous studies in the EMS (Behnke, Conrad, et al., 2019; Cicognani et al., 2009; Groß et al., 2004; Prati et al., 2010, 2011), personnel with longer work experience reported higher self-efficacy, and higher self-efficacy was associated with higher job satisfaction and fewer physical and depressive symptoms in trend. Future research could aim to comprehensively examine the nature and relationship of self-efficacy, acceptance, humor, and self-criticism/rumination with health and well-being in frontline workers.

Limitations and Future Directions

Studies did not conclude on a unique hierarchical structure of the coping strategies assessed with the Brief-COPE (Hanfstingl et al., 2021; Solberg et al., 2021). Therefore, we decided to test the adequacy of the factor solution explored by Cicognani et al. (2009) and were able to replicate the factor structure. However, additional reliability analyses showed that some of the extracted factors overlap, which compromises their factor reliability. Our sample size is rather small for conducting CFA, and future studies should aim to recruit larger samples. Moreover, simulation studies demonstrated that drawing reliable conclusions about model-to-data fit in CFA is not trivial, as Hu and Bentler’s (1999) criteria may lead to unreliable results (Beierl et al., 2018; Heene et al., 2011).

Compared to previous studies in the EMS, the response rate in our study (46.6%) is in the upper range (Brown et al., 2002; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005). Nevertheless, generalizability of our findings is limited by convenience sampling. Results may be biased by differences between study participants and non-participants; i.e., EMSP with more stress symptoms and/or socially inappropriate coping behaviors (e.g., substance abuse) were perhaps unmotivated or avoided participation (non-response bias; Bortz & Döring, 2004). EMSP who were unable to work or had changed their profession due to severe stress-related health problems could not be included in the study. This may lead to biased results, as highly stressed personnel might use less effective coping strategies (healthy-worker effect; Costa, 2003). Future studies should compare coping habits of EMSP capable to work and those with work-related health problems.

Limitations in validity could result from retrospective recall errors (Jonkisz et al., 2012). That is, EMSP remembered stressful events but did not associate them with specific coping strategies, or they are completely unaware of using certain strategies. Moreover, the study’s cross-sectional correlative design does not allow causal or predictive conclusions. Longitudinal research is required to better characterize the interplay of coping, stress exposure, and well-being through high-frequency measurements, for example, on a daily basis using mobile phone applications. Such “ecological momentary assessments” enable identifying coping behaviors with prospective relevance in handling daily occupational stressors and traumatic mission events in the EMS.

 Conclusions

Effective coping with occupational stressors is pivotal for retaining health and well-being in emergency workers. With this cross-sectional study in German EMSP, we confirmed seven coping factors that were previously identified by Cicognani et al. (2009) in Italian emergency workers. Among these coping factors, only self-criticism was significantly associated with the EMSPs’ work-related stress, job satisfaction, and well-being. Additionally, exploratory correlations indicated that using acceptance was potentially beneficial for the self-efficacy and well-being of EMSP. Our findings implicate investigating the use and relevance of self-criticism and acceptance in prospective longitudinal designs. Determining the relevance of certain coping strategies regarding health and well-being is key to developing occupation-tailored preventive interventions.

This study was supported by the German Red Cross (Deutsches Rotes Kreuz), rescue service Heidenheim-Ulm gGmbH.

Acknowledgment

We thank Suchithra Varadarajan for proof reading.

 References Aasa, U., Brulin, C., Angquist, K.-A., & Barnekow-Bergkvist, M. (2005). Work-related psychosocial factors, worry about work conditions and health complaints among female and male ambulance personnel. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 19(3), 251–258. 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2005.00333.x16101853 Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.00420015584 Alexander, D. A., & Klein, S. (2001). Ambulance personnel and critical incidents: Impact of accident and emergency work on mental health and emotional well-being. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 178(1), 76–81. 10.1192/bjp.178.1.7611136215 ALmutairi, M. N., & El Mahalli, A. A. (2020). Burnout and coping methods among emergency medical services professionals. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 13, 271–279. 10.2147/JMDH.S24430332214822 Arble, E., & Arnetz, B. B. (2017). A model of first-responder coping: An approach/avoidance bifurcation. Stress and Health, 33(3), 223–232. 10.1002/smi.269227500991 Ayduk, Ö., & Kross, E. (2010). Analyzing negative experiences without ruminating: The role of self-distancing in enabling adaptive self-reflection. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 841–854. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00301.x Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. Bateman, A. W., & Fonagy, P. (2012). Handbook of mentalizing in mental health practice. American Psychiatric Association Publishing. Behnke, A., Conrad, D., Kolassa, I.-T., & Rojas, R. (2019). Higher sense of coherence is associated with better mental and physical health in emergency medical services: Results from investigations on the revised sense of coherence scale (SOC-R) in rescue workers. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 10(1), 1606628. 10.1080/20008198.2019.160662831164965 Behnke, A., Rojas, R., Karrasch, S., Hitzler, M., & Kolassa, I.-T. (2019). Deconstructing traumatic mission experiences: Identifying critical incidents and their relevance for the mental and physical health among emergency medical service personnel. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2305. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0230531695639 Beierl, E. T., Bühner, M., & Heene, M. (2018). Is that measure really one-dimensional? Nuisance parameters can mask severe model misspecification when assessing factorial validity. Methodology, 14(4), 188–196. 10.1027/1614-2241/a000158 Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics, 29(4), 1165–1188. 10.1214/aos/1013699998 Bentley, M. A., & Levine, R. (2016). A national assessment of the health and safety of emergency medical services professionals. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 31(S1), S96–S104. 10.1017/S1049023X1600110227890031 Berger, W., Coutinho, E. S. F., Figueira, I., Marques-Portella, C., Luz, M. P., Neylan, T. C., Marmar, C. R., & Mendlowicz, M. V. (2012). Rescuers at risk: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis of the worldwide current prevalence and correlates of PTSD in rescue workers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(6), 1001–1011. 10.1007/s00127-011-0408-221681455 Boland, L. L., Mink, P. J., Kamrud, J. W., Jeruzal, J. N., & Stevens, A. C. (2019). Social support outside the workplace, coping styles, and burnout in a cohort of EMS providers from Minnesota. Workplace Health & Safety, 67(8), 414–422. 10.1177/216507991982915431064273 Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2004). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (4., überarb. Aufl.). Springer. Boudreaux, E., Mandry, C., & Brantley, P. J. (1997). Stress, job satisfaction, coping, and psychological distress among emergency medical technicians. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 12(4), 9–16. 10.1017/S1049023X0003774210179201 Brown, J., Mulhern, G., & Joseph, S. (2002). Incident-related stressors, locus of control, coping, and psychological distress among firefighters in Northern Ireland. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(2), 161–168. 10.1023/A:101481630995912013068 Bryant, R. A., & Guthrie, R. M. (2007). Maladaptive self-appraisals before trauma exposure predict posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5), 812–815. 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.81217907863 Buruck, G., & Dörfel, D. (2018). iga.Report 37. Emotionsregulation in der Arbeit am Beispiel Rettungsdienst. https://www.iga-info.de/veroeffentlichungen/igareporte/igareport-37/ Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Canestrari, C., Bongelli, R., Fermani, A., Riccioni, I., Bertolazzi, A., Muzi, M., & Burro, R. (2021). Coronavirus disease stress among Italian healthcare workers: The role of coping humor. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 601574. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.60157433569023 Chai, P. P. M., Krägeloh, C. U., Shepherd, D., & Billington, R. (2012). Stress and quality of life in international and domestic university students: Cultural differences in the use of religious coping. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15(3), 265–277. 10.1080/13674676.2011.571665 Chang, C.-M., Lee, L.-C., Connor, K. M., Davidson, J. R. T., & Lai, T.-J. (2008). Modification effects of coping on post-traumatic morbidity among earthquake rescuers. Psychiatry Research, 158(2), 164–171. 10.1016/j.psychres.2006.07.01518258306 Chang, Y., & Edwards, J. K. (2015). Examining the relationships among self-efficacy, coping, and job satisfaction using social career cognitive theory: An SEM analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(1), 35–47. 10.1177/1069072714523083 Cheng, C., Lau, H.-P. B., & Chan, M.-P. S. (2014). Coping flexibility and psychological adjustment to stressful life changes: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1582–1607. 10.1037/a003791325222637 Cicognani, E., Pietrantoni, L., Palestini, L., & Prati, G. (2009). Emergency workers’ quality of life: The protective role of sense of community, efficacy beliefs and coping strategies. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 449–463. 10.1007/s11205-009-9441-x Consiglio, C., Borgogni, L., Alessandri, G., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Does self-efficacy matter for burnout and sickness absenteeism? The mediating role of demands and resources at the individual and team levels. Work and Stress, 27(1), 22–42. 10.1080/02678373.2013.769325 Costa, G. (2003). Factors influencing health of workers and tolerance to shift work. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4(3–4), 263–288. 10.1080/14639220210158880 Donnelly, E., & Siebert, D. (2009). Occupational risk factors in the emergency medical services. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 24(5), 422–429. 10.1017/S1049023X0000725120066645 Essex, B., & Scott, L. B. (2008). Chronic stress and associated coping strategies among volunteer EMS personnel. Prehospital Emergency Care, 12(1), 69–75. 10.1080/1090312070170795518189181 Feldman, T. R., Carlson, C. L., Rice, L. K., Kruse, M. I., Beevers, C. G., Telch, M. J., & Josephs, R. A. (2021). Factors predicting the development of psychopathology among first responders: A prospective, longitudinal study. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 13(1), 75–83. 10.1037/tra000095732940524 Figley, C. E. (2008). Dissociation. Paper presented at the meeting of the 115th American Psychological Association convention, Boston, MA, USA. Fjeldheim, C. B., Nöthling, J., Pretorius, K., Basson, M., Ganasen, K., Heneke, R., Cloete, K. J., & Seedat, S. (2014). Trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder and the effect of explanatory variables in paramedic trainees. BMC Emergency Medicine, 14(1), 11. 10.1186/1471-227X-14-1124755358 Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 745–774. 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.14145614744233 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. 10.1177/002224378101800104 Friedenberg, R., Kalichman, L., Ezra, D., Wacht, O., & Alperovitch-Najenson, D. (2022). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders and injuries among emergency medical technicians and paramedics: A comprehensive narrative review. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 77(1), 9–17. 10.1080/19338244.2020.183203833073742 Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job performance: Effects of weekend experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(3), 187–199. 10.1037/1076-8998.10.3.18716060723 Gärtner, A., Behnke, A., Conrad, D., Kolassa, I.-T., & Rojas, R. (2019). Emotion regulation in rescue workers: Differential relationship with perceived work-related stress and stress-related symptoms. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2744. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0274430687192 Groß, C., Joraschky, P., Gruss, B., Mück-Weymann, M., & Pöhlmann, K. (2004). Belastung und Bewältigung im Rettungsdienst – Protektive Faktoren für Stressbewältigung und Burnout-Prävention. PPmP – Psychotherapie · Psychosomatik · Medizinische Psychologie, 54(2), , Abstract P3570. 10.1055/s-2004-819799 Guilaran, J., de Terte, I., Kaniasty, K., & Stephens, C. (2018). Psychological outcomes in disaster responders: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of social support. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(3), 344–358. 10.1007/s13753-018-0184-7 Gurung, R. A. R., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2003). Accounting for changes in social support among married older adults: Insights from the MacArthur studies of successful aging. Psychology and Aging, 18(3), 487–496. 10.1037/0882-7974.18.3.48714518810 Häller, P., Michael, T., & Balmer Köchlin, K. (2009). Posttraumatische Belastungsstörung (PTBS) bei Rettungssanitätern: PTBS, komorbide Beschwerden und Inanspruchnahme psychologischer Hilfe von Rettungssanitätern. Verhaltenstherapie & Verhaltensmedizin, 30, 403–417. Hanfstingl, B., Gnambs, T., Fazekas, C., Gölly, K. I., Matzer, F., & Tikvić, M. (2021). The dimensionality of the Brief COPE before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessment. 107319112110524. Advance online publication. 10.1177/1073191121105248334654329 Hayes, S. C. (2016). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies – Republished article. Behavior Therapy, 47(6), 869–885. 10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.00627993338 Heene, M., Hilbert, S., Draxler, C., Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2011). Masking misfit in confirmatory factor analysis by increasing unique variances: A cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 319–336. 10.1037/a002491721843002 Hegg-Deloye, S., Brassard, P., Jauvin, N., Prairie, J., Larouche, D., Poirier, P., Tremblay, A., & Corbeil, P. (2014). Current state of knowledge of post-traumatic stress, sleeping problems, obesity and cardiovascular disease in paramedics. Emergency Medicine Journal, 31(3), 242–247. 10.1136/emermed-2012-20167223314206 Holton, M. K., Barry, A. E., & Chaney, J. D. (2016). Employee stress management: An examination of adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies on employee health. Work, 53(2), 299–305. 10.3233/WOR-15214526409388 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 Jamal, Y., Zahra, S. T., Yaseen, F., & Nasreen, M. (2017). Coping strategies and hardiness as predictors of stress among rescue workers. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 32, 141–154. James, K., Verplanken, B., & Rimes, K. A. (2015). Self-criticism as a mediator in the relationship between unhealthy perfectionism and distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 123–128. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.030 Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of work‐related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 178–187. 10.1108/02683940510579803 Jonkisz, E., Moosbrugger, H., & Brandt, H. (2012). Planung und Entwicklung von Tests und Fragebogen. In H. Moosbrugger & A. Kelava (Hrsg.), Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (S. 27–74). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 10.1007/978-3-642-20072-4_3 Karrasch, S., Hitzler, M., Behnke, A., Tumani, V., Kolassa, I.-T., & Rojas, R. (2020). Chronic and traumatic stress among Emergency Medical Services personnel. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 49(4), 204–217. 10.1026/1616-3443/a000600 Karutz, H., Overhagen, M., & Stum, J. (2013). Psychische Belastungen im Wachalltag von Rettungsdienstmitarbeitern und Feuerwehrleuten. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung, 8(3), 204–211. 10.1007/s11553-012-0373-y Katsikatsou, M., Moustaki, I., Yang-Wallentin, F., & Jöreskog, K. G. (2012). Pairwise likelihood estimation for factor analysis models with ordinal data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 56(12), 4243–4258. 10.1016/j.csda.2012.04.010 Kerai, S. M., Khan, U. R., Islam, M., Asad, N., Razzak, J., & Pasha, O. (2017). Post-traumatic stress disorder and its predictors in emergency medical service personnel: A cross-sectional study from Karachi, Pakistan. BMC Emergency Medicine, 17(1), 26. 10.1186/s12873-017-0140-728851280 Kirby, R., Shakespeare-Finch, J., & Palk, G. (2011). Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies predict posttrauma outcomes in ambulance personnel. Traumatology, 17(4), 25–34. 10.1177/1534765610395623 Kleim, B., & Westphal, M. (2011). Mental health in first responders: A review and recommendation for prevention and intervention strategies. Traumatology, 17(4), 17–24. 10.1177/1534765611429079 Knoll, N., Rieckmann, N., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Coping as a mediator between personality and stress outcomes: A longitudinal study with cataract surgery patients. European Journal of Personality, 19(3), 229–247. 10.1002/per.546 Krüger-Gottschalk, A., Knaevelsrud, C., Rau, H., Dyer, A., Schäfer, I., Schellong, J., & Ehring, T. (2017). The German version of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): Psychometric properties and diagnostic utility. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 379. 10.1186/s12888-017-1541-629183285 Kshtriya, S., Kobezak, H. M., Popok, P., Lawrence, J., & Lowe, S. R. (2020). Social support as a mediator of occupational stressors and mental health outcomes in first responders. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(7), 2252–2263. 10.1002/jcop.2240332841385 Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer. LeBlanc, V. R., Regehr, C., Birze, A., King, K., Scott, A. K., MacDonald, R., & Tavares, W. (2011). The association between posttraumatic stress, coping, and acute stress responses in paramedics. Traumatology, 17(4), 10–16. 10.1177/1534765611429078 Leist, A. K., & Müller, D. (2013). Humor types show different patterns of self-regulation, self-esteem, and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(2), 551–569. 10.1007/s10902-012-9342-6 Levy-Gigi, E., Bonanno, G. A., Shapiro, A. R., Richter-Levin, G., Kéri, S., & Sheppes, G. (2016). Emotion regulatory flexibility sheds light on the elusive relationship between repeated traumatic exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Clinical Psychological Science, 4(1), 28–39. 10.1177/2167702615577783 Löwe, B., Spitzer, R., Zipfel, S., & Herzog, W. (2002). Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten (PHQ-D). Komplettversion und Kurzform. Testmappe mit Manual, Fragebögen, Schablonen. Pfizer. Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75. 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2 Moran, C. C. (2002). Humor as a moderator of compassion fatigue. In C. R. Figley (Ed.), Treating compassion fatigue (Psychosocial Stress Series, No. 24., pp. 139–154). Brunner-Routledge. Moritz, S., Jahns, A. K., Schröder, J., Berger, T., Lincoln, T. M., Klein, J. P., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). More adaptive versus less maladaptive coping: What is more predictive of symptom severity? Development of a new scale to investigate coping profiles across different psychopathological syndromes. Journal of Affective Disorders, 191, 300–307. 10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.02726702520 Nicolaisen, M., & Thorsen, K. (2017). What are friends for? Friendships and loneliness over the lifespan – from 18 to 79 years. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 84(2), 126–158. 10.1177/009141501665516627357305 Ogińska-Bulik, N., & Zadworna-Cieślak, M. (2018). The role of resiliency and coping strategies in occurrence of positive changes in medical rescue workers. International Emergency Nursing, 39, 40–45. 10.1016/j.ienj.2018.02.00429452962 Petrie, K., Milligan-Saville, J., Gayed, A., Deady, M., Phelps, A., Dell, L., Forbes, D., Bryant, R., Calvo, R., Glozier, N., & Harvey, S. (2018). Prevalence of PTSD and common mental disorders amongst ambulance personnel: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 53, 897–909. 10.1007/s00127-018-1539-529869691 Portero de la Cruz, S., Cebrino, J., Herruzo, J., & Vaquero-Abellán, M. (2020). A multicenter study into burnout, perceived stress, job satisfaction, coping strategies, and general health among emergency department nursing staff. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(4), 1007. 10.3390/jcm904100732252444 Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2009). Optimism, social support, and coping strategies as factors contributing to posttraumatic growth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 14(5), 364–388. 10.1080/15325020902724271 Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2010). The relation of perceived and received social support to mental health among first responders: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3), 403–417. 10.1002/jcop.20371 Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & Cicognani, E. (2010). Self-efficacy moderates the relationship between stress appraisal and quality of life among rescue workers. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 23(4), 463–470. 10.1080/1061580090343169919937503 Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & Cicognani, E. (2011). Coping strategies and collective efficacy as mediators between stress appraisal and quality of life among rescue workers. International Journal of Stress Management, 18(2), 181–195. 10.1037/a0021298 Raykov, T. (2001). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 54(2), 315–323. 10.1348/00071100115958211817096 Raynor, D., & Hicks, R. (2019). Empathy and coping as predictors of professional quality of life in Australian Registered Migration Agents (RMAs). Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(4), 530–540. 10.1080/13218719.2018.150784631984094 R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (3.6.2) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Regehr, C., Goldberg, G., & Hughes, J. (2002). Exposure to human tragedy, empathy, and trauma in ambulance paramedics. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(4), 505–513. 10.1037/0002-9432.72.4.50515792036 Richter, S. (2014). Stressbelastung und Stressbewältigung bei haupt- und ehrenamtlichen Einsatzkräften in Rheinland-Pfalz [Doctoral dissertation, Universität der Bundeswehr]. https://d-nb.info/1069557307/34 Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 Rowe, A., & Regehr, C. (2010). Whatever gets you through today: An examination of cynical humor among emergency service professionals. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 15(5), 448–464. 10.1080/15325024.2010.507661 Schäfer, J. Ö., Naumann, E., Holmes, E. A., Tuschen-Caffier, B., & Samson, A. C. (2017). Emotion regulation strategies in depressive and anxiety symptoms in youth: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 261–276. 10.1007/s10964-016-0585-027734198 Schmid, K., Riehm, Y., Rossbach, B., Letzel, S., Drexler, H., & Mück-Weymann, M. (2008). Influence of rescue service personnel’s shift work on psycho-physical parameters. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 58(11), 416–422. 10.1055/s-2007-98629118092281 Schyns, B., & Collani, G. (2014). Berufliche Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung. Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS). 10.6102/ZIS16 Shirazi, M., Khan, M. A., & Khan, R. A. (2011). Coping strategies: A cross-cultural study.. Romanian Journal of Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience, 1(2), 284–302. Sliter, M., Kale, A., & Yuan, Z. (2014). Is humor the best medicine? The buffering effect of coping humor on traumatic stressors in firefighters. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 257–272. 10.1002/job.1868 Solberg, M. A., Gridley, M. K., & Peters, R. M. (2021). The factor structure of the Brief Cope: A systematic review. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 019394592110120. Advance online publication. 10.1177/0193945921101204433942676 Sterud, T., Ekeberg, Ø., & Hem, E. (2006). Health status in the ambulance services: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 82. 10.1186/1472-6963-6-8216817949 Sterud, T., Hem, E., Lau, B., & Ekeberg, Ø. (2011). A comparison of general and ambulance specific stressors: Predictors of job satisfaction and health problems in a nationwide one-year follow-up study of Norwegian ambulance personnel. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 6(1), 10. 10.1186/1745-6673-6-1021450112 Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–471. 10.1002/jts.24900903058827649 Wagner, A. C., Monson, C. M., & Hart, T. L. (2016). Understanding social factors in the context of trauma: Implications for measurement and intervention. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(8), 831–853. 10.1080/10926771.2016.1152341 Wagner, S. L., White, N., Regehr, C., White, M., Alden, L. E., Buys, N., Carey, M. G., Corneil, W., Fyfe, T., Matthews, L. R., Randall, C., Krutop, E., & Fraess-Phillips, A. (2020). Ambulance personnel: Systematic review of mental health symptoms. Traumatology, 26(4), 370–387. 10.1037/trm0000251 Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(1), 5–30. 10.1177/0265407500171001 Wild, J., Greenberg, N., Moulds, M. L., Sharp, M.-L., Fear, N., Harvey, S., Wessely, S., & Bryant, R. A. (2020). Pre-incident training to build resilience in first responders: Recommendations on what to and what not to do. Psychiatry, 83(2), 128–142. 10.1080/00332747.2020.175021532338579 Wild, J., Smith, K. V., Thompson, E., Béar, F., Lommen, M. J. J., & Ehlers, A. (2016). A prospective study of pre-trauma risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Psychological Medicine, 46(12), 2571–2582. 10.1017/S003329171600053227348599 Zhao, Y., An, Y., Sun, X., & Liu, J. (2020). Self-acceptance, post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic growth, and the role of social support in Chinese rescue workers. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25(3), 264–277. 10.1080/15325024.2019.1672935 Data Availability

The datasets for this manuscript are not publicly available because we do not have the consent of the ethics committee or our participants to grant any form of access to or insight in all or parts of the collected data.

 Supplementary Materials

Supplementary tables presenting: Descriptive statistics, internal consistencies, and univariate normality assessment of Brief-COPE subscales (Table X1), and Spearman correlations between Brief-COPE subscales and the other study variables (Table X2) (for access see Index of Supplementary Materials below).

Rojas R. Hickmann M. Wolf S. Kolassa I.-T. Behnke A. (2022). Supplementary materials to "Coping in the Emergency Medical Services: Associations with the personnel’s stress, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and health" [Additional information]. PsychOpen GOLD. 10.23668/psycharchives.5585

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 Author Contributions

RR, AB, and ITK developed the study concept. RR and AB conducted the study setup and data collection. AB and MH performed the statistical analysis. RR, MH, SW, and AB drafted the paper under supervision of ITK. All authors contributed to the interpretation of data, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final version of the paper for submission.