Women veteran transition mental health and well-being support group programs: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The military is a male-dominated environment and culture in which women veterans can experience significant institutional prejudice. Transition can be confusing and isolating for women veterans. Group programs are an important source of transition support. However, we know little about the specific group program needs of women veterans. OBJECTIVES: To examine mental health and well-being support group programs delivered to women veterans, to understand what they value and find most helpful. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Women military veterans (all types); empirical studies using any design; published between 1990 and 2022; group programs focused on transition issues (such as housing, employment, education, physical health, mental health). SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Peer-reviewed journals and theses. CHARTING METHODS: Six databases searched: Medline (via Ovid SP), PsycINFO (via Ovid SP), EmCare (via Ovid SP), CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest. RESULTS: There was significant heterogeneity across 35 included studies in type of groups, program content and structure, length of sessions, measurement of impact, follow-up, and so forth. Most programs were delivered face to face. Physical health and preventative healthcare were important topics for women veterans, particularly reproductive health, mental health, and chronic pain. Groups that included physical activity, creative arts, and alternative therapies were beneficial to women's physical and mental health. Strengths-based women-only groups, facilitated by women, that created safe spaces for women veterans to share their experiences, enhanced self-expression, agency, and self-empowerment. This was particularly important for women who had experience military sexual trauma. CONCLUSION: This review found a small but diverse range of group programs available for women veterans. Many program evaluations were of moderate or low quality and lacked sufficient information to determine whether benefits were sustained over time. No studies involved Australian women veterans. Despite these concerns, this review highlighted several useful lessons that could help inform improved design, delivery, and evaluation of group programs for women veterans.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".