Examining the Role of Physiological and Psychological Responses to Critical Incidents in Prisons in the Development of Mental Health Problems among Correctional Officers, Minnesota, 2018-2020 (ICPSR 38803)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

Correctional officers are exposed to work-related critical incidents (e.g., assaults) at a higher rate than individuals in other occupations. Correctional officers also suffer more negative health and occupational outcomes (e.g., stress, turnover) relative to employees in other occupations, and there is some evidence to suggest they are more likely to exhibit symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) than the general population. Yet, few studies have examined whether exposure to critical incidents contributes to negative health and/or occupational outcomes among this population or why these relationships might occur. It remains unclear, for instance, whether exposure to work-related critical incidents triggers physiological and psychological responses among officers that, in turn, increase their vulnerability to developing mental health problems. This project aimed to expand existing literature through a longitudinal examination of prison officers' physiological and psychological responses to work-related critical incidents.

The study sought to extended existing research through (1) an examination of effects of objective indicators of exposure to work-related critical incidents on physiological markers of stress and psychological stress among prison officers, (2) an assessment of whether officers' physiological and psychological stress responses to critical incidents change over time, and (3) an examination of whether exposure to work-related critical incidents directly and indirectly (through physiological markers of stress and psychological stress) affects the development of mental health problems among officers.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Data collection was completed at three correctional facilities within the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MnDOC). The included institutions were strategically selected to provide a representative cross-section of all facilities in the overall correctional system. Data collection was completed using a two-cohort design and across four collection periods. The two-cohort design was necessitated by a critical incident that occurred at one of the study sites during the first wave of data collection but before the first day of data collection at that study site (Site 2). Data collection had already commenced at the other study sites (Sites 1 and 3) and was scheduled to start later in the same week for Site 2. Before data collection efforts could begin at Site 2, the facility was locked down preventing the research team from entering the facility during the first data collection period and preventing the collection of any data. After consulting with MnDOC administration and in an effort to retain Site 2 in the study, the study shifted to a two-cohort design, which necessitated a fourth data collection period.

During all three waves of data collection, participating officers were asked to complete surveys with items aimed at assessing a wide range of topics. Surveys were distributed via employee email addresses using Qualtrics. To collect biomarker data, each participating officer was asked to provide a saliva sample at the beginning of one shift and another sample at the end of the same shift. To collect critical incident data, MnDOC provided information related to all disciplinary incidents that occurred within the three study facilities across two observation periods.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

Correctional officers from three correctional facilities in Minnesota.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Of the 703 officers who were present during the wave 1 recruitment period across the three facilities included in the study, 488 COs agreed to participate in the study and provided written informed consent, resulting in a response rate of approximately 69%. Wave 2 was completed approximately six months after wave 1 and included approximately 71% (n = 344) of participants recruited at wave 1. The final wave of data collection, wave 3, was completed approximately six months after wave 2 and approximately one year following wave 1. Approximately 79% of officers that participated at wave 1 survey and 89% of officers who participated at wave 2 survey (n = 381) also participated at wave 3.

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2024-12-10