‘He’s never been the same’: Children’s perception of moral injury in parents post military deployment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: As the prevalence of potentially morally injurious events appears to be increasing in modern deployment settings, it is vital for health care providers and researchers to understand the presentation and prevalence of moral injury. Currently, there is little research that uses the unique perspectives of children in military families to understand changes in parents post deployment. Methods: Using qualitative methods, eight participants who grew up in military families and had a parent deployed to a potentially morally injurious mission during their childhoods were engaged in semi-structured interviews to better understand their perspectives of parental deployment, available resources pre and post deployment, and perceptions of behavioural changes associated with potential moral injury post deployment. Results: Findings indicate children in military families were able to perceive changes in parents early that were consistent with the presence of moral injury. This study also demonstrated children in military families had a lack of military-specific supports that would allow them to assist in early identification of military service-related moral injury. Discussion: The ability for children in military families to identify early presentations of moral injury among personnel deployed on combat missions is under-recognized. Participants in this study were able to identify changes in parental behaviours and attitudes quickly following reintegration after deployment, highlighting the significance of including military children in the care and support of military members post deployment.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".