MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280520776 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.892320

Risk Factors for Moral Injury Among Canadian Armed Forces Personnel

2022· article· en· W4280520776 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bethany Easterbrook, Rachel A. Plouffe, Stephanie A. Houle, Aihua Liu, Margaret C. McKinnon, Andrea R. Ashbaugh, Natalie Mota, Tracie O. Afifi, Murray W. Enns, J. Don Richardson, Anthony Nazarov

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversity of OttawaWestern UniversityMcMaster UniversityDeer Lodge CentreHomewood Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoral injuryMilitary personnelMilitary deploymentFeelingMedicineMental healthMilitary serviceClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychologySoftware deploymentNeglectIntervention (counseling)Social psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives The traumatic nature of high-risk military deployment events, such as combat, is well-recognized. However, whether other service-related events and demographic factors increase the risk of moral injury (MI), which is defined by consequences of highly stressful and morally-laden experiences, is poorly understood. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine determinants of MI in Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel. Methods Data were obtained from the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS; unweighted n = 2,941). To identify military characteristics, sociodemographic variables, and deployment-related factors associated with increased levels of MI, a series of multiple linear regressions were conducted across deployed and non-deployed groups. Results When all variables were considered among the deployed personnel, rank, experiencing military related sexual trauma, child maltreatment (i.e., physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect), and stressful deployment experiences were significant predictors of increased MI total scores (β = 0.001 to β = 0.51, p < 0.05). Feeling responsible for the death of an ally and inability to respond in a threatening situation were the strongest predictors of MI among stressful deployment experiences. Within the non-deployed sample, experiencing military-related or civilian sexual trauma and rank were significant predictors of increased MI total scores (β = 0.02 to β = 0.81, p < 0.05). Conclusion Exposure to stressful deployment experiences, particularly those involving moral-ethical challenges, sexual trauma, and childhood maltreatment were found to increase levels of MI in CAF personnel. These findings suggest several avenues of intervention, including education and policies aimed at mitigating sexual misconduct, as well as pre-deployment training to better prepare military personnel to deal effectively with morally injurious experiences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207