MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3183701870 · doi:10.1093/milmed/usab283

Systematic Review of the Military Career Impact of Mental Health Evaluation and Treatment

2021· review· en· W3183701870 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard E. Heyman, Amy M. Smith Slep, Aleja Parsons, Emma L Ellerbeck, Katharine K. McMillan

Notice bibliographique

RevueMilitary Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiquePosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesU.S. Air ForceYork University
Mots-clésActive dutyPsycINFOMilitary personnelMilitary serviceMental healthMedicineService memberPopulationMEDLINEDutyIntervention (counseling)Military medicineFamily medicinePsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Military leaders are concerned that active duty members' fear of career impact deters mental health (MH) treatment-seeking. To coalesce research on the actual and perceived consequences of MH treatment on service members' careers, this systematic review of literature on the U.S. Military since 2000 has been investigating the following three research questions: (1) is the manner in which U.S. active duty military members seek MH treatment associated with career-affecting recommendations from providers? (2) Does MH treatment-seeking in U.S. active duty military members impact military careers, compared with not seeking treatment? (3) Do U.S. active duty military members perceive that seeking MH treatment is associated with negative career impacts? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of academic databases for keywords "military 'career impact' 'mental health'" resulted in 653 studies, and an additional 51 additional studies were identified through other sources; 61 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. A supplemental search in Medline, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar replacing "career impact" with "stigma" was also conducted; 54 articles (comprising 61 studies) met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: As stipulated by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, studies were summarized on the population studied (U.S. Military Service[s]), sample used, intervention type, comparison group employed, outcome variables, and findings. Self-referred, compared with command-directed, service members appear to be less likely to face career-affecting provider recommendations in non-deployed and deployed settings although the data for the latter are not consistent. Of the two studies that tested if MH treatment actually negatively impacts military careers, results showed that those who sought treatment were more likely to be discharged although the casual nature of this relationship cannot be inferred from their design. Last, over one-third of all non-deployed service members, and over half of those who screened positive for psychiatric problems, believe that seeking MH treatments will harm their careers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite considerable efforts to destigmatize MH treatment-seeking, a substantial proportion of service members believe that seeking help will negatively impact their careers. On one hand, these perceptions are somewhat backed by reality, as seeking MH treatment is associated with a higher likelihood of being involuntarily discharged. On the other hand, correlational designs cannot establish causality. Variables that increase both treatment-seeking and discharge could include (1) adverse childhood experiences; (2) elevated psychological problems (including both [a] the often-screened depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress problems and [b] problems that can interfere with military service: personality disorders, psychotic disorders, and bipolar disorder, among others); (3) a history of aggressive or behavioral problems; and (4) alcohol use and abuse. In addition, most referrals are self-directed and do not result in any career-affecting provider recommendations. In conclusion, the essential question of this research area-"Does seeking MH treatment, compared with not seeking treatment, cause career harm?"-has not been addressed scientifically. At a minimum, longitudinal studies before treatment initiation are required, with multiple data collection waves comprising symptom measurement, treatment, and other services obtained, and a content-valid measure of career impact.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,160
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,224
Tête enseignante GPT0,526
Écart entre enseignants0,302 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations23
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMilitary MedicineMême sujetPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchTravaux en français237 207