A question of time? Deployments, dwell time, and work-life balance for military personnel in Scandinavia

In recent years, interest in the different ways in which military employment affects individuals' work-life balance (WLB) has grown. At the same time, research on military organizations and personnel has increasingly included time-related factors such as deploy-to-dwell (D2D) ratios to help explain adverse health effects of overseas deployments. The aim of this article is to explore connections between organizational systems for regulating deployment frequency and dwell (or respite) time with a particular focus on potential consequences for work-life balance. We focus on personal and organizational factors that shape the nature and outcome of work-life balance, including stress, mental health problems, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. To explore these links, we first provide an overview of research on the impact of deploy-to-dwell ratios on mental health and social relations. We then turn to the regulation and organization of deployment and dwell time in Scandinavia. Here, the ambition is to identify potential sources of work-life conflict and associated effects for deployed personnel. The results provide a basis for further research into time-related effects of military deployments.

Risk factors for mental ill health in UK Army personnel: an overview

Women in the UK military are more commonly diagnosed with a mental health disorder than men, but the reasons for this difference are not fully understood. This literature review identifies the risk factors for mental ill health in military personnel before serving, during service and as a veteran. The interaction of risk factors is complex and, in some cases, may be synergistic, such as experiencing adverse events in childhood and exposure to combat. Identification of risk factors allows further research to better understand differences between men and women, and the impact of these risk factors on army personnel. In turn this will inform better preventive strategies, which could be targeted at the primary, secondary or tertiary levels.

Early First Deployment and Risk of Suicide Attempt Among First-term Enlisted Soldiers in the U.S. Army

OBJECTIVE

We examined early first deployment and subsequent suicide attempt among U.S. Army soldiers.

METHOD

Using 2004-2009 administrative data and person-month records of first-term, Regular Army, enlisted soldiers with one deployment (89.2% male), we identified 1,704 soldiers with a documented suicide attempt during or after first deployment and an equal-probability control sample (n = 25,861 person-months).

RESULTS

Logistic regression analyses indicated soldiers deployed within the first 12 months of service were more likely than later deployers to attempt suicide (OR = 1.7 [95% CI = 1.5-1.8]). Adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, service-related characteristics, and previous mental health diagnosis slightly attenuated this association (OR = 1.6 [95% CI = 1.5-1.8]). Results were not modified by gender, deployment status, military occupation, or mental health diagnosis. The population-attributable risk proportion for deploying within the first 12 months of service was 17.8%. Linear spline models indicated similar risk patterns over time for early and later deployers, peaking at month 9 during deployment and month 5 postdeployment; however, monthly suicide attempt rates were consistently higher for early deployers.

CONCLUSIONS

Enlisted soldiers deployed within the first 12 months of service have elevated risk of suicide attempt during and after first deployment. Improved understanding of why early deployment increases risk can inform the development of policies and intervention programs.

Associations of Time-Related Deployment Variables With Risk of Suicide Attempt Among Soldiers: Results From the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS)

Importance

There has been limited systematic examination of whether risk of suicide attempt (SA) among US Army soldiers is associated with time-related deployment variables, such as time in service before first deployment, duration of first deployment, and dwell time (DT) (ie, length of time between deployments).

Objective

To examine the associations of time-related deployment variables with subsequent SA among soldiers who had deployed twice.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using administrative data from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2009, this longitudinal, retrospective cohort study identified person-month records of active-duty Regular Army enlisted soldiers who had served continuously in the US Army for at least 2 years and deployed exactly twice. The dates of analysis were March 1 to December 1, 2017. There were 593 soldiers with a medically documented SA during or after their second deployment. An equal-probability sample of control person-months was selected from other soldiers with exactly 2 deployments (n = 19 034). Logistic regression analyses examined the associations of time in service before first deployment, duration of first deployment, and DT with subsequent SA.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Suicide attempts during or after second deployment were identified using US Department of Defense Suicide Event Report records and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification E950 to E958 diagnostic codes. Independent variables were constructed from US Army personnel records.

Results

Among 593 SA cases, most were male (513 [86.5%]), white non-Hispanic (392 [66.1%]), at least high school educated (477 [80.4%]), currently married (398 [67.1%]), and younger than 21 years when they entered the US Army (384 [64.8%]). In multivariable models adjusting for sociodemographics, service-related characteristics, and previous mental health diagnosis, odds of SA during or after second deployment were higher among soldiers whose first deployment occurred within the first 12 months of service vs after 12 months (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.4) and among those with a DT of 6 months or less vs longer than 6 months (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0). Duration of first deployment was not associated with subsequent SA. Analysis of 2-way interactions indicated that the associations of early deployment and DT with SA risk were not modified by other characteristics. Multivariable population-attributable risk proportions were 14.2% for deployment within the first 12 months of service and 4.0% for DT of 6 months or less.

Conclusions and Relevance

Time in service before first deployment and DT are modifiable risk factors for SA risk among soldiers.

Deployment of personnel to military operations: impact on mental health and social functioning

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of deployment on mental health. The review summarizes evidence from 185 studies. All studies used observational data to quantify the effect of deployment. This review includes studies that evaluate the effects of deployment on mental health. A total of 185 studies were identified. However, only 40 of these were assessed to be of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the final analysis. The studies spanned the period from 1993 to 2017 and were mostly carried out in the USA, UK and Australia. The studies all had some important methodological weaknesses. None of the included studies used experimental designs (random assignment). Deployment to military operations negatively affects the mental health functioning of deployed military personnel. For assessments taken more than 24 months since exposure, we consistently found adverse effects of deployment on all mental health domains (PTSD, depression, substance abuse/dependence, and common mental disorders), particularly on PTSD. For assessments taken less than 24 months (or a variable number of months since exposure) the evidence was less consistent and in many instances inconclusive.

Plain language summary

Deployment to military operations negatively affects the mental health functioning of deployed military personnel: While additional research is needed, the current evidence strongly supports the notion that deployment negatively affects mental health functioning of deployed military personnel.What is this review about?: When military personnel are deployed to military operations abroad they face an increased risk of physical harm, and an increased risk of adverse shocks to their mental health.The primary condition under consideration is deployment to an international military operation. Deployment to a military operation is not a uniform condition; rather, it covers a range of scenarios. Military deployment is defined as performing military service in an operation at a location outside the home country for a limited time period, pursuant to orders.The review included studies that reported outcomes for individuals who had been deployed. This review looked at the effect of deployment on mental health outcomes. The mental health outcomes are: post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), common mental disorders (depression, anxiety and somatisation disorders) and substance-related disorders.By identifying the major effects of deployment on mental health and quantifying these effects, the review can inform policy development on deployment and military activity as well as post-deployment support for veterans. In this way the review enables decision-makers to prioritise key areas.What are the main findings of this review?: What studies are included?: This review includes studies that evaluate the effects of deployment on mental health. A total of 185 studies were identified. However, only 40 of these were assessed to be of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the final analysis. The studies spanned the period from 1993 to 2017 and were mostly carried out in the USA, UK and Australia. The studies all had some important methodological weaknesses. None of the included studies used experimental designs (random assignment).Does deployment have an effect on mental health?: Deployment to military operations negatively affects the mental health functioning of deployed military personnel. For assessments taken more than 24 months since exposure, we consistently found adverse effects of deployment on all mental health domains (PTSD, depression, substance abuse/dependence, and common mental disorders), particularly on PTSD. For assessments taken less than 24 months (or a variable number of months since exposure) the evidence was less consistent and in many instances inconclusive.What do the findings of this review mean?: The odds of screening positive for PTSD and depression were consistently high in the longer term. This suggests that efforts should be increased to detect and treat mental disorders, as effects may be long-lasting.Overall the risk of bias in the majority of included studies was high. While it is difficult to imagine a randomised study design to understand how deployment affects mental health, other matters such as changes to personnel policy, or unanticipated shocks to the demand for military personnel, could potentially be a rich source of quasi-experimental variation.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies up to 2017. This Campbell systematic review was published in March 2018.

Executive summary

BACKGROUND: When military personnel are deployed to military operations abroad they face an increased risk of physical harm, and an increased risk of adverse shocks to their mental health. Research suggests that the increased risk to mental health is mainly due to the hazards of war, combat exposure: firing weapons, road side bombs, seeing fellow soldiers, friends, civilians, and enemies being injured, maimed or killed. These experiences may lead to severe mental stress. The adverse impact on mental health is the psychological cost of war, and it is of interest to policymakers to learn the magnitude of these effects. This review sets out to synthesise available evidence about the consequences of deployment for deployed military personnel in the mental health and social functioning domains.OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review isto synthesise the consequences of deployment to military operation on the mental health and social functioning of deployed military personnel.SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases, grey literature, and references from primary studies and related reviews. No language or date restrictions were applied to the searches. We searched the following electronic databases: Academic Search Elite, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, SocINDEX, as well as the Nordic platforms: bibliotek.dk, BIBSYS, and LIBRIS. The conclusions of this review are based on the most recent searches performed. The last search was performed in April 2017.SELECTION CRITERIA: Primary studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: Participants: The participants should be military personnel.Intervention: The condition should be deployment to a military operation.Comparison: The relevant comparisons were either comparing a) deployed military personnel to non-deployed military personnel, b) deployed military personnel to military personnel deployed elsewhere, for example personnel deployed to non-combat operations, c) military personnel deployed to the same operation but stratified by combat exposure.Outcomes: The study should report on one or more mental health outcomes, and/or social functioning for the deployed participants. In particular studies should report on one or more of the following mental health outcomes: PTSD, major depression, substance abuse or dependence (including alcohol), and common mental disorders (depression and anxiety disorders). The following social functioning outcomes were relevant: employment, and homelessness.Study Designs: Both experimental and quasi-experimental designs with a comparison group were eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies were excluded if they: Reported on deployments taking place before 1989.Used a within group pre-post study design.Did not report on at least one of the mental health or social functioning outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted31,049records. A total of 185 studies met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. The final selection of 185 studies was from 13 different countries.Forty eight of the 185 studies did not report effect estimates or provide data that would allow the calculation of an effect size and standard error. Fifty four studies were excluded because of overlapping samples. The majority of those studies were from USA but the main reason for not using studies from USA in the synthesis was lack of information to calculate an effect size. Nearly half the studies from the UK could not be used in the synthesis due to overlap of data samples. Forty three studies were judged to have a very high risk of bias (5 on the scale) and, in accordance with the protocol, we excluded these from the data synthesis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform., Thus a total of 40 studies, from five different countries, were included in the data synthesis.Random effects models were used to pool data across the studies. We used the odds ratio. Pooled estimates were weighted with inverse variance methods, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The meta-analyses were carried out by time since exposure (short, medium, long, and other time since exposure) and by type of comparison (deployed versus non-deployed, all deployed but stratified by either combat operations versus non-combat operations, or stratified by combat exposure). We performed single factor subgroup analysis. The assessment of any difference between subgroups was based on 95% confidence intervals. Funnel plots were used to assess the possibility of publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate whether the pooled effect sizes were robust across components of methodological quality.MAIN RESULTS: The findings were mixed, depending on the outcome, the time since exposure and the approach (deployed versus non-deployed termed absolute or stratified by extent of combat termed relative) used to investigate the effect. It was not possible to analyse the outcomes homelessness and employment. All studies that could be used in the data synthesis reported on the impact of deployment on mental health; PTSD, depression, substance use or common mental disorder.For assessments taken less than 24 months since exposure the evidence was inconclusive either because too few studies reported results in the short and medium term and/or the degree of heterogeneity between studies was large.For assessments taken at other time points (a variable number of months since exposure) the evidence was inconclusive for the relative comparisons due to either too few studies or a substantial degree of heterogeneity between studies. For the absolute comparison the analysis of common mental disorder was inconclusive, whereas the average effects of PTSD and depression were positive and statistically significant (PTSD odds ratio (OR) was 1.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28 to 2.85) and OR=1.98 (95% CI: 1.05 to 3.70) for depression). The analysis concerning substance use indicated that deployed participants did not have higher odds of screening positive for substance use compared to non-deployed participants (OR=1.15 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.36)).For assessments taken more than 24 months post exposure, meta-analyses indicated that the odds of screening positive for PTSD, depression, substance use and common mental disorder were higher for participants in the deployed group compared to participants in the group that were not deployed (PTSD OR=3.31 (95% CI: 2.69 to 4.07), OR=2.19 (95% CI: 1.58 to 3.03) for depression, OR=1.27 (95% CI: 1.15 to 1.39) for substance use, and OR=1.64 (95% CI: 1.38 to 1.96) for common mental disorder). Likewise, participants reporting high combat exposure had higher odds of screening positive for PTSD and depression than participants reporting lower exposure for long term assessments (PTSD OR=3.05 (95% CI: 1.94 to 4.80) and OR=1.81 (95% CI: 1.28 to 2.56) for depression). The analyses of substance use and common mental disorder were inconclusive due to too few studies.On the basis of the prevalence of mental health problems in pre-deployed or non-deployed population based comparison sampleswe would therefore expect the long term prevalence of PTSD in post-deployed samples to be in the range 6.1 - 14.9%, the long term prevalence of depression to be in the range from 7.6% to 18%, the long term prevalence of substance use to be in the range from 2.4% to 17.5% and the prevalence of common mental disorder to be in the range from 10% to 23%.Sensitivity analyses resulted in no appreciable change in effect size, suggesting that the results are robust.It was only possible to assess the impact of two types of personnel characteristics (branch of service and duty/enlistment status) on the mental health outcomes. We found no evidence to suggest that the effect of deployment on any outcomes differ between these two types of personnel characteristics.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Deployment to military operations negatively affects the mental health functioning of deployed military personnel. We focused on the effect of deployment on PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), depression, substance abuse/dependence, and common mental disorders (depression and anxiety disorders). For assessments taken less than 24 months (or a variable number of months since exposure) the evidence was less consistent and in many instances inconclusive. For assessments taken more than 24 months since exposure, we consistently found adverse effects of deployment on all domains, particularly on PTSD. There is increased political awareness of the need to address post deployment mental health problems. The odds of screening positive for PTSD and depression were consistently high in the longer term. This suggests that efforts should be increased to detect and treat mental disorders, as effects may be long lasting. Mental illness is of particular concern in the military for operational reasons, but they may be hard to detect in the military setting because a military career is intimately linked with mental and physical strength.It was not possible to examine a number of factors which we had reason to expect would impact on the magnitude of the effect. This would have been particularly relevant from a policy perspective because these are direct parameters that one could use to optimally "organize" deployment in order to minimize impacts on mental health functioning.While additional research is needed, the current evidence strongly supports the notion that deployment negatively affects mental health functioning of deployed military personnel. The next step is to begin to examine preventive measures and policies for organizing deployment, in order to minimize the effects on mental health.

A Review of Military Health Research Using a Social–Ecological Framework

Objective:

We aim to contextualize the growing body of research on the sequelae of military service in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We employ a social–ecological (SE) framework for the taxonomy of military health research and classify risk as arising from the individual, family, community, and the institutional levels. We intend for this review to inform enhanced health promotion efforts in military communities.

Data Source:

Articles reviewed were extracted from Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria:

Research focused on somatic and psychological sequelae of combat deployment published from 2001—the year the war in Afghanistan began—through the end of 2014. We excluded studies of non-US military personnel, other systematic reviews, meta-analyses, book chapters, and theoretical papers.

Data Extraction:

We examined and summarized the aims, participants, methods, study design, SE framework tier, risk factors, and health outcomes.

Data Synthesis:

Studies were categorized according to SE tier, whether they focused on somatic, behavioral, or psychological outcomes, and by risk factor.

Results:

Of the 352 peer-reviewed papers, 84% focused on war’s sequelae on the index military personnel, and 75% focused on mental or behavioral health outcomes—mostly on post-traumatic stress disorder. We find comparatively little research focusing on the family, community, or institutional tiers.

Conclusions:

We know relatively little about how family and community respond to the return of personnel from combat deployment; how family resources affect the health of returning military personnel; and how a war’s persistence presents challenges for federal, state, and local agencies to meet military health-care needs. Such work is especially salient as US troops return home from war—particularly in communities where there are substantial military populations.

Deployment characteristics and long-term PTSD symptoms

OBJECTIVE

The impact of number, length, and time between (i.e., "dwell time") deployments on long-term Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms was examined in post-9/11 U.S. veterans.

METHOD

This cross-sectional design includes data from 278 veterans participating in a larger longitudinal research program of postdeployment recovery. Measures included self-report questionnaires and the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale.

RESULTS

Hierarchical regression was used to evaluate the independent contributions of deployment characteristics on long-term PTSD symptoms after controlling for demographics and combat exposure. As expected, dwell time was a significant predictor of long-term PTSD symptoms (β = - 0.17, p = .042; F_5,108  = 8.21, ∆R²  = 0.03, p < .001). Follow-up analyses indicated that dwell time of less than 12 months was associated with significantly greater long-term PTSD symptoms than those deployed once or with dwell time greater than 12 months.

CONCLUSION

In addition to combat exposure, time between deployments warrants clinical attention as an important deployment characteristic for predicting long-term PTSD symptoms.

Understanding deployment from the perspective of those who have served

BACKGROUND

The term deployment is used by the military to describe sending troops to carry out a combat, peacekeeping, or humanitarian mission.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this analysis was to illustrate the variations around combat deployment experiences.

METHODS

Qualitative descriptive methodology was used to examine data from 17 members of the U.S. military who deployed at least once to a combat zone after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

FINDINGS

No two deployments were the same between individuals or within individuals if they deployed more than once. Variations were discovered in deployment experiences related to deployment demands, deployment resources, and coming back changed as individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding deployment as a singular concept does not take into account the variations in the deployment experience. Individuals caring for those who have served in war would benefit from understanding that each deployment is unique and a life-altering experience.