Is the Military’s Century-Old Frontline Psychiatry Policy Harmful to Veterans and Their Families? Part Three of a Systematic Review

Combat and Operational Stress Control Interventions and PTSD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Military personnel must prepare for and respond to life-threatening crises on a daily basis. This lifestyle places stress on personnel, and particularly so on deployed service members who are isolated from support systems and other resources. As part of a larger systematic review on the acceptability, efficacy, and comparative effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent, identify, and manage stress reactions, we assessed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the electronic databases PsycINFO, PubMed, PTSDPubs, the Defense Technical Information Center, and Cochrane Central, as well as bibliographies of existing systematic reviews, to identify English-language studies evaluating the efficacy or comparative effectiveness of stress control interventions published since 1990. Controlled trials and cohort comparisons of interventions with military, law enforcement, and first responders were included. Two independent reviewers screened literature using predetermined eligibility criteria. Researchers individually abstracted study-level information and outcome data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; data were reviewed for accuracy by the project leader. Changes in PTSD symptom scores from baseline to post-intervention were converted to standardized mean differences for comparison across studies. Risk ratios were calculated for PTSD case rates post-deployment. When several studies that compared an intervention group with a similar control/comparator reported the same outcome category and measure type, we conducted meta-analysis. We conducted meta-regression by adding a categorical variable, representing setting (i.e., in theater) or population (military vs. law enforcement or first responders) to the meta-analysis model to assess whether this variable was associated with the outcome across studies. The quality of the body of evidence (QoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers study limitations (risk of bias), directness, consistency, precision, and publication bias.

RESULTS

Sixteen controlled trials and 13 cohort comparisons reporting PTSD outcomes met inclusion criteria. Eight controlled trials and two cohort studies had high risk of bias, primarily due to poor, differential, or unknown response rate at follow-up. Twenty-four of the 29 studies included military personnel. Interventions included Acceptance-based Skills training, Attention Bias Modification training, stress inoculation with biofeedback, Critical Incident Stress Debriefing, group psychological debriefing, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for sub-clinical stress, embedding mental health providers in theater, Third Location Decompression, reintegration programs, and a 3-week post-deployment residential program for psychological resource strengthening.Meta-analyses of studies comparing a group that received a stress control intervention to a group that did not receive an intervention found no significant difference in reduction in PTSD symptom scores (moderate QoE) or PTSD case rate post-deployment (low QoE). A meta-analysis of studies comparing a specific stress control intervention to an active comparator (usually standard stress management education) found no significant effect on PTSD symptom scores (moderate QoE).

CONCLUSION

Although combat and operational stress control (COSC) interventions may play a valuable role in decreasing stress, decreasing absenteeism, and enabling return to duty, a systematic review of 29 studies that included a control/comparison group found little evidence that COSC is effective in preventing PTSD or decreasing PTSD symptom scores in military personnel.

Considerations for Acute and Emergent Deployed Mental Health Patient Management and Theater Transports: A Scoping Review

Background

Although combat stress and psychiatric casualties of war have consistently contributed to the need for deployed patient transport to higher echelons of care, little is known regarding specific evidence-based strategies for providing psychological support and optimal transport interventions for warriors.

Study Objective

The purpose of this scoping review is to map existing literature related to considerations for deployed mental health patient transport. The review’s primary aims are to identify the existing scientific research evidence, determine research and training gaps, and recommend critical areas for future military research.

Methods

We used Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage scoping review methodological framework (identify the research question, identify relevant studies, select studies, chart data, report results, and consultation). Using a systematic search strategy, we evaluated peer-reviewed literature from five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Embase) and gray literature from the Defense Technical Information Center. All publications were independently screened for eligibility by two researchers during three review rounds (title, abstract, and full text).

Results

We identified 1,384 publications, 61 of which met our inclusion criteria. Most publications and technical reports were level IV evidence and below, primarily retrospective cohort studies and epidemiologic surveillance reports. Few rigorously designed studies were identified. Eight research themes and a variety of research and critical training gaps were derived from the reviewed literature. Themes included (1) characterizing mental health patients aeromedically evacuated from theater; (2) in-flight sedation medications; (3) need for aeromedical evacuation (AE) in-theater education, training, and guidelines for staff; (4) epidemiological surveillance of AE from theater; (5) mental health management in deployed settings; (6) suicide-related event management; (7) transport issues for mental health patients; and (8) psychological stressors of AE. Research is needed to establish clinical practice guidelines for mental health condition management in theater and throughout the continuum of en route care.