ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
The second victim phenomenon among German emergency medical technicians: a cross-sectional study based on the SeViD questionnaire (SeViD-VIII).
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Second victim experiences among Austrian nonphysician emergency medical services personnel : A cross-sectional analysis of symptom burden and associated factors.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Burnout, PTSD, and Medical Error: The Medico-Legal Implications of the Mental Health Crisis Among Frontline Healthcare Professionals During COVID-19.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Second victims among emergency medical dispatchers in Germany: a cross-sectional study (SeViD-VII).International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency medical technicians (EMTs) frequently encounter high-stress, traumatic events, making them vulnerable to the second victim phenomenon (SVP), a state of emotional distress following adverse patient-related incidents. While SVP is well documented among physicians and nurses, research on EMTs remains limited. This study examines the prevalence, risk factors, symptom burden, and preferred support strategies for SVP among German EMTs.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using the validated SeViD questionnaire (Second Victims in German-speaking countries). The survey assessed SVP prevalence, symptom severity, and preferred support measures. Binary logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of SVP and symptom burden. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic and occupational characteristics.
resultsAmong the 699 respondents, 528 (75.5%) completed the survey. The prevalence of SVP was 65.3%, with 53.3% reporting SVP within the past 12 months. The most common triggering events were unexpected patient deaths (37.1%) and aggressive behavior from patients or relatives (19.1%). Logistic regression revealed that professional experience (OR = 1.055, p < 0.001) and employment in ground-based intensive care transport (OR = 2.444, p = 0.004) were risk factors for SVP, whereas male gender (OR = 0.392, p < 0.001) and conscientiousness (OR = 0.765, p = 0.033) were factors associated with lower risk. Higher extraversion was associated with lower symptom burden (OR = 0.754, p = 0.013). The most valued support measures were legal consultation and professional counseling.
conclusionsSVP is highly prevalent among EMTs and has significant psychological and emotional consequences. Greater work experience and intensive care transport roles increase SVP risk, whereas conscientiousness and extraversion appear protective. The implementation of structured peer support programs may help mitigate the impact of SVP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.