Retrospective cohort study of compliance with post-deployment screening in the Canadian Armed Forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel who return from certain international deployments are required to complete post-deployment screening (PDS) 90 to 180 days post-deployment; the primary goal of PDS is early detection of mental health problems that aims for reduced delays to care provision. We investigated service members' compliance with the PDS completion requirement and the factors associated with this compliance; a secondary objective was to investigate completion timing. DESIGN: The study used a retrospective cohort of CAF personnel (n=28 460) who had deployments over 01 January 2009 to 31 December 2014; inferences were based on a probabilistic sample (n=3004). PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was PDS completion. We assessed the timing of PDS completion, comparing non-compliant (early, late or no completion) with compliant completions (90 to 180 days post-deployment) among deployments that required screening. Kaplan-Meier plots summarised time-to-completion and logistic regression assessed the covariate associations with compliant completion. Covariate-adjusted marginal compliance prevalence differences (MPD) were computed. RESULTS: 67.3% (95% CI65.0 to 69.6) of deployments that required PDS had one completed; 43.3% (95%CI 40.6 to 46.0) were completed within the compliant period. Compliant completion was higher with lower ranks (MPD=10.6%, relative to officers), combat arms occupations (MPD=8.4%), Afghanistan deployments (MPD=19.2%), longer deployments (MPD=10.1%) and among those without a past mental health problem (MPD=9.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that some selective processes may be occurring where those perceived to be at higher risk for post-deployment mental health problems are more compliant with PDS completion. However, PDS completion and compliant completion were lower than expected and this suggests a need to reinforce instruction on the guidelines and objectives of PDS among service members in the CAF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".