There is no conflict of interest.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of hazard recognition training on safety outcomes.
- The study was an interrupted time series design using hazard recognition (HR) index scores collected before training, immediately after training, and 90 days later. The authors compared the outcomes of participants before and after they participated in the intervention.
- The study found that the hazard recognition index scores significantly improved from pre-test to post-test, while there were no significant changes at the 90-day follow-up indicating a retention of training.
- The study receives a low causal evidence rating. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the energy based hazard recognition training; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Features of the Intervention
The energy based hazard recognition training was a specialized training program designed to improve firefighters' ability to recognize and anticipate hazardous conditions they may encounter while on duty. The training featured a narrated video lasting about 16 minutes. It explained Haddon’s energy release theory, which helped identify potential dangers in firefighting scenarios. The training targeted firefighters who are responsible for emergency services such as fire suppression, rescue operations, and ensuring public safety against fire hazards.
Features of the Study
The study was conducted with firefighters from municipal fire departments in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. Of the 43 firefighters, 28 were randomly assigned to the treatment group and 15 were randomly assigned to the control group. The treatment group received energy based hazard recognition training, while the control group watched a 5-minute narrated video about Africa. The study sample had an average age of 34 years, an average of 14 years of professional firefighting experience, and the majority were firefighters/engineers (86%).
The primary data source was hazard recognition (HR) index scores derived from firefighters' responses to photographs representing various firefighting operations, such as roof ventilation, vehicle extrication, and trench rescue. Data collection occurred in active fire department office headquarters during normal operating hours to reduce distractions, ensuring that participants were not rushed through the experiment and to accommodate the firefighters' shift schedules. Data were collected before training, immediately after training, and 90 days later. The authors used statistical tests to compare the hazard recognition index scores before and after they participated in the intervention.
Findings
Health and safety
- The study found that participating in the energy based hazard recognition training was significantly associated with improved HR index scores immediately after training.
- The study did not find a significant difference in HR index scores from post-test to the 90-day follow-up, indicating a retention of training.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The intervention consisted of a single session of energy based hazard recognition training for the treatment group. Data were gathered at one pre-test and two post-test timepoints, with the second post-test occurring roughly 90 days after the first. While the initial study design was a randomized controlled trial, the authors only compared the outcomes of firefighters measured before and after they participated in the energy based hazard recognition training. They did not compare the changes in outcomes with those of the control group of firefighters who did not participate in the intervention. Therefore, the study was reviewed as an interrupted time series. For these types of designs, authors must observe outcomes for multiple periods before the intervention to rule out the possibility that participants had increasing or decreasing trends in the outcomes examined before enrollment in the program. That is, if participants who had increased hazard recognition scores tended to enroll in the program, we would anticipate further decreases over time, even if they did not participate in the program. Without knowing the trends before study enrollment, we cannot rule this out. Therefore, the study receives a low causal evidence rating..
Causal Evidence Rating
Research Guidelines
Review Protocol: Living Systematic Annual Search and Review Protocol
Review Guidelines: Causal Evidence Guidelines