Use of the Operational Stress Injury Social Support (OSISS) Program in a Nationally Representative Sample of Canadian Active Duty Military Personnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionRecent research evidence indicates increased mental health needs among Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel. Research evidence also indicates that a portion of CAF personnel with mental health needs do not seek professional mental health care or significantly delay initiating treatment. The current study was designed to examine individual correlates of use for a paraprofessional peer support program available to CAF personnel, veterans, and their families (i.e., Operational Stress Injury Social Support [OSISS]). Methods: Participants included 6,700 CAF Regular members. Prevalence estimates were computed for all variables of interest and hierarchical logistic regression analyses served to identify correlates of OSISS use. Results: The results indicate that meeting criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder had the strongest association with OSISS use (OR = 22.31 [95% CI = 13.36-37.28]), but only a small number of CAF personnel (1.2%) seek help from OSISS. Discussion: Results suggest that OSISS use was limited and tended to occur in conjunction with professional mental health service use. Efforts could be engaged to emphasize the availability of peer support as a resource for all operational stress injuries and to increase the reach of peer support programs for military personnel.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".