Compliance with the NATO Standards in the Field of Psychological Assistance for the Servicemen with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing number of the servicemen with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the war raises the problem of providing them with psychological assistance among the top priorities at the national level. The aim of the study is to identify the effectiveness of using NATO standards in the system of psychological assistance to the servicemen with PTSD. Methods: The study employed the Mississippi Scale, Impact of Event Scale (IES-R), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The statistics were processed using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, Student’s t-test for independent samples. Results: The study showed that 20.28% of the servicemen had a high level of PTSD. They have pronounced symptoms of intrusion, avoidance, hyperarousal, high anxiety, and depression. It was established that the use of NATO standards of psychological assistance to the servicemen with PTSD is reliably effective in reducing symptoms of intrusion (t=2.53, p≤0.01), avoidance (t=3.22, p≤0.01), excitability (t =4.18, p≤0.01), anxiety (t=4.56, p≤0.01), and depression (t=3.87, p≤0.01).Conclusions. The problem of the occurrence of PTSD and symptoms of the disorder among the servicemen participating in military operations was confirmed. It was proved that the use of NATO standards in the training and psychological assistance to service men is effective in reducing the PTSD level and its symptoms. Prospects: The obtained results are significant for military psychologists who work directly with the servicemen in warfare and can use the obtained data for early intervention to prevent the occurrence of PTSD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".