Psychiatric diagnoses and punishment for misconduct: the effects of PTSD in combat-deployed Marines

Prison Adjustment Among Military Veterans: The Impact of Traumatic Events, Service History, and PTSD

Military veterans have been shown to differ demographically from non-veterans in the criminal justice system. However, relatively little is known about their psychological adjustment, institutional misbehavior, and the efficacy of programing received while incarcerated. Using data taken from a national sample of prison inmates, this study investigates how traumatic events experienced during military service can impact the intensity of negative affect among veterans. Additionally, we examine whether prison misconduct is influenced by military service history and the receipt of substance abuse treatment. Controlling for a host of relevant variables, our results indicate that traumatic events show a significant effect on psychological adjustment only indirectly through veterans who developed post-traumatic stress disorder and that misconduct is lower among those who received an honorable discharge. Overall, these findings suggest that the ability of veterans to resist adverse outcomes may depend on a variety of factors both within and outside the prison environment.

An Examination of PTSD and Criminal Responsibility among US Servicemembers

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study evaluated the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis among military servicemembers referred for Sanity Boards (n = 229), which is a military evaluation for competence to stand trial (CST) and criminal responsibility (CR). This study further explored the degree to which PTSD was considered a "severe mental disease or defect," the degree to which PTSD was associated with an opinion of not criminally responsible (NCR), and the degree to which PTSD was associated with incompetence to stand trial (IST).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Completed Sanity Board evaluations were the source of data. This study used an empirical approach to reviewing the Sanity Boards.

RESULTS

Sanity Boards diagnosed 13.1% of referrals with PTSD. Of those diagnosed with PTSD, no participants (0%) were opined to meet criteria for incompetence to stand trial (IST), 30% were opined to meet the insanity criteria of "severe mental disease or defect," and one person (0.4%) was found not criminally responsible (NCR) based on PTSD. In the single case in which the person was recommended as NCR based on PTSD, the criminal behavior was deemed to be related to dissociation.

CONCLUSIONS

PTSD is often considered a "severe mental disease or defect" during Sanity Board evaluations, which differs from the legal standard for "severe mental disease or defect" used by the military justice system. Forensic practitioners consulting with the military justice system acknowledge that PTSD is a "severe mental disease or defect" often, but they rarely opine that PTSD renders a servicemember NCR. In the rare instance where PTSD was opined to render a servicemember NCR, the symptom of dissociation caused an inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the action.

Analysis and determinants of Chinese navy personnel health status: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There have been very few studies analyzing the relationship of physical and mental health status with health behaviors and deployment status in Chinese navy personnel. Thus, we undertook this survey to assess this relationship and identify specific factors affecting the physical and mental health status.

METHODS

The subjects enrolled in this study were selected from four units of the active-duty navy personnel in China, based on a cluster random sampling design. A total of 1200 Chinese navy personnel participated and completed the questionnaire survey that included veteran SF-36 form and a self-designed questionnaire regarding their sociodemographic characteristics, deployment status, self-rated health status and health behaviors. Totally 1200 questionnaires were distributed to different participants, while 1083 valid questionnaires were included in the final analysis. All data were analyzed using SPSS18.0 software.

RESULTS

Based on the information provided by navy personnel, 17.82, 35.09 and 23.08% rated their health as excellent, very good and good, respectively. The mean score of physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) was 50.53 and 41.39, respectively. Length of service, binge drinking, regular drinking and BMI appeared to be associated with PCS score, while household income, binge drinking and BMI affected MCS score. Deployment status and smoking exhibited no significant association with PCS and MCS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that the sociodemographic factors like length of service and household income, along with behavioral risk factors like binge drinking, regular drinking and body mass index (BMI), seem to affect the physical and mental health status of Chinese navy personnel. However, additional data collection and more detailed analysis would still be required to develop a systematic, comprehensive and corresponding health education program to promote overall health status.

Deployment of personnel to military operations: impact on mental health and social functioning

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of deployment on mental health. The review summarizes evidence from 185 studies. All studies used observational data to quantify the effect of deployment. This review includes studies that evaluate the effects of deployment on mental health. A total of 185 studies were identified. However, only 40 of these were assessed to be of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the final analysis. The studies spanned the period from 1993 to 2017 and were mostly carried out in the USA, UK and Australia. The studies all had some important methodological weaknesses. None of the included studies used experimental designs (random assignment). Deployment to military operations negatively affects the mental health functioning of deployed military personnel. For assessments taken more than 24 months since exposure, we consistently found adverse effects of deployment on all mental health domains (PTSD, depression, substance abuse/dependence, and common mental disorders), particularly on PTSD. For assessments taken less than 24 months (or a variable number of months since exposure) the evidence was less consistent and in many instances inconclusive.

Plain language summary

Deployment to military operations negatively affects the mental health functioning of deployed military personnel: While additional research is needed, the current evidence strongly supports the notion that deployment negatively affects mental health functioning of deployed military personnel.What is this review about?: When military personnel are deployed to military operations abroad they face an increased risk of physical harm, and an increased risk of adverse shocks to their mental health.The primary condition under consideration is deployment to an international military operation. Deployment to a military operation is not a uniform condition; rather, it covers a range of scenarios. Military deployment is defined as performing military service in an operation at a location outside the home country for a limited time period, pursuant to orders.The review included studies that reported outcomes for individuals who had been deployed. This review looked at the effect of deployment on mental health outcomes. The mental health outcomes are: post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), common mental disorders (depression, anxiety and somatisation disorders) and substance-related disorders.By identifying the major effects of deployment on mental health and quantifying these effects, the review can inform policy development on deployment and military activity as well as post-deployment support for veterans. In this way the review enables decision-makers to prioritise key areas.What are the main findings of this review?: What studies are included?: This review includes studies that evaluate the effects of deployment on mental health. A total of 185 studies were identified. However, only 40 of these were assessed to be of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the final analysis. The studies spanned the period from 1993 to 2017 and were mostly carried out in the USA, UK and Australia. The studies all had some important methodological weaknesses. None of the included studies used experimental designs (random assignment).Does deployment have an effect on mental health?: Deployment to military operations negatively affects the mental health functioning of deployed military personnel. For assessments taken more than 24 months since exposure, we consistently found adverse effects of deployment on all mental health domains (PTSD, depression, substance abuse/dependence, and common mental disorders), particularly on PTSD. For assessments taken less than 24 months (or a variable number of months since exposure) the evidence was less consistent and in many instances inconclusive.What do the findings of this review mean?: The odds of screening positive for PTSD and depression were consistently high in the longer term. This suggests that efforts should be increased to detect and treat mental disorders, as effects may be long-lasting.Overall the risk of bias in the majority of included studies was high. While it is difficult to imagine a randomised study design to understand how deployment affects mental health, other matters such as changes to personnel policy, or unanticipated shocks to the demand for military personnel, could potentially be a rich source of quasi-experimental variation.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies up to 2017. This Campbell systematic review was published in March 2018.

Executive summary

BACKGROUND: When military personnel are deployed to military operations abroad they face an increased risk of physical harm, and an increased risk of adverse shocks to their mental health. Research suggests that the increased risk to mental health is mainly due to the hazards of war, combat exposure: firing weapons, road side bombs, seeing fellow soldiers, friends, civilians, and enemies being injured, maimed or killed. These experiences may lead to severe mental stress. The adverse impact on mental health is the psychological cost of war, and it is of interest to policymakers to learn the magnitude of these effects. This review sets out to synthesise available evidence about the consequences of deployment for deployed military personnel in the mental health and social functioning domains.OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review isto synthesise the consequences of deployment to military operation on the mental health and social functioning of deployed military personnel.SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases, grey literature, and references from primary studies and related reviews. No language or date restrictions were applied to the searches. We searched the following electronic databases: Academic Search Elite, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, SocINDEX, as well as the Nordic platforms: bibliotek.dk, BIBSYS, and LIBRIS. The conclusions of this review are based on the most recent searches performed. The last search was performed in April 2017.SELECTION CRITERIA: Primary studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: Participants: The participants should be military personnel.Intervention: The condition should be deployment to a military operation.Comparison: The relevant comparisons were either comparing a) deployed military personnel to non-deployed military personnel, b) deployed military personnel to military personnel deployed elsewhere, for example personnel deployed to non-combat operations, c) military personnel deployed to the same operation but stratified by combat exposure.Outcomes: The study should report on one or more mental health outcomes, and/or social functioning for the deployed participants. In particular studies should report on one or more of the following mental health outcomes: PTSD, major depression, substance abuse or dependence (including alcohol), and common mental disorders (depression and anxiety disorders). The following social functioning outcomes were relevant: employment, and homelessness.Study Designs: Both experimental and quasi-experimental designs with a comparison group were eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies were excluded if they: Reported on deployments taking place before 1989.Used a within group pre-post study design.Did not report on at least one of the mental health or social functioning outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The total number of potentially relevant studies constituted31,049records. A total of 185 studies met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. The final selection of 185 studies was from 13 different countries.Forty eight of the 185 studies did not report effect estimates or provide data that would allow the calculation of an effect size and standard error. Fifty four studies were excluded because of overlapping samples. The majority of those studies were from USA but the main reason for not using studies from USA in the synthesis was lack of information to calculate an effect size. Nearly half the studies from the UK could not be used in the synthesis due to overlap of data samples. Forty three studies were judged to have a very high risk of bias (5 on the scale) and, in accordance with the protocol, we excluded these from the data synthesis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform., Thus a total of 40 studies, from five different countries, were included in the data synthesis.Random effects models were used to pool data across the studies. We used the odds ratio. Pooled estimates were weighted with inverse variance methods, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The meta-analyses were carried out by time since exposure (short, medium, long, and other time since exposure) and by type of comparison (deployed versus non-deployed, all deployed but stratified by either combat operations versus non-combat operations, or stratified by combat exposure). We performed single factor subgroup analysis. The assessment of any difference between subgroups was based on 95% confidence intervals. Funnel plots were used to assess the possibility of publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate whether the pooled effect sizes were robust across components of methodological quality.MAIN RESULTS: The findings were mixed, depending on the outcome, the time since exposure and the approach (deployed versus non-deployed termed absolute or stratified by extent of combat termed relative) used to investigate the effect. It was not possible to analyse the outcomes homelessness and employment. All studies that could be used in the data synthesis reported on the impact of deployment on mental health; PTSD, depression, substance use or common mental disorder.For assessments taken less than 24 months since exposure the evidence was inconclusive either because too few studies reported results in the short and medium term and/or the degree of heterogeneity between studies was large.For assessments taken at other time points (a variable number of months since exposure) the evidence was inconclusive for the relative comparisons due to either too few studies or a substantial degree of heterogeneity between studies. For the absolute comparison the analysis of common mental disorder was inconclusive, whereas the average effects of PTSD and depression were positive and statistically significant (PTSD odds ratio (OR) was 1.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28 to 2.85) and OR=1.98 (95% CI: 1.05 to 3.70) for depression). The analysis concerning substance use indicated that deployed participants did not have higher odds of screening positive for substance use compared to non-deployed participants (OR=1.15 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.36)).For assessments taken more than 24 months post exposure, meta-analyses indicated that the odds of screening positive for PTSD, depression, substance use and common mental disorder were higher for participants in the deployed group compared to participants in the group that were not deployed (PTSD OR=3.31 (95% CI: 2.69 to 4.07), OR=2.19 (95% CI: 1.58 to 3.03) for depression, OR=1.27 (95% CI: 1.15 to 1.39) for substance use, and OR=1.64 (95% CI: 1.38 to 1.96) for common mental disorder). Likewise, participants reporting high combat exposure had higher odds of screening positive for PTSD and depression than participants reporting lower exposure for long term assessments (PTSD OR=3.05 (95% CI: 1.94 to 4.80) and OR=1.81 (95% CI: 1.28 to 2.56) for depression). The analyses of substance use and common mental disorder were inconclusive due to too few studies.On the basis of the prevalence of mental health problems in pre-deployed or non-deployed population based comparison sampleswe would therefore expect the long term prevalence of PTSD in post-deployed samples to be in the range 6.1 - 14.9%, the long term prevalence of depression to be in the range from 7.6% to 18%, the long term prevalence of substance use to be in the range from 2.4% to 17.5% and the prevalence of common mental disorder to be in the range from 10% to 23%.Sensitivity analyses resulted in no appreciable change in effect size, suggesting that the results are robust.It was only possible to assess the impact of two types of personnel characteristics (branch of service and duty/enlistment status) on the mental health outcomes. We found no evidence to suggest that the effect of deployment on any outcomes differ between these two types of personnel characteristics.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Deployment to military operations negatively affects the mental health functioning of deployed military personnel. We focused on the effect of deployment on PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), depression, substance abuse/dependence, and common mental disorders (depression and anxiety disorders). For assessments taken less than 24 months (or a variable number of months since exposure) the evidence was less consistent and in many instances inconclusive. For assessments taken more than 24 months since exposure, we consistently found adverse effects of deployment on all domains, particularly on PTSD. There is increased political awareness of the need to address post deployment mental health problems. The odds of screening positive for PTSD and depression were consistently high in the longer term. This suggests that efforts should be increased to detect and treat mental disorders, as effects may be long lasting. Mental illness is of particular concern in the military for operational reasons, but they may be hard to detect in the military setting because a military career is intimately linked with mental and physical strength.It was not possible to examine a number of factors which we had reason to expect would impact on the magnitude of the effect. This would have been particularly relevant from a policy perspective because these are direct parameters that one could use to optimally "organize" deployment in order to minimize impacts on mental health functioning.While additional research is needed, the current evidence strongly supports the notion that deployment negatively affects mental health functioning of deployed military personnel. The next step is to begin to examine preventive measures and policies for organizing deployment, in order to minimize the effects on mental health.

Outpatient Mental Health Treatment Utilization and Military Career Impact in the United States Marine Corps

Service members (SM) are at increased risk of psychiatric conditions, including suicide, yet research indicates SMs believe seeking mental health treatment may negatively impact their military careers, despite a paucity of research examining actual career impacts. This study examined the link between seeking outpatient mental health (MH) treatment and military career impacts within the United States Marine Corps. In Phase 1, a retrospective medical record review of outpatient MH treatment-seeking Marines (N = 38) was conducted. In Phase 2, a sample of outpatient MH treatment-seeking Marines (N = 40) was matched to a non-treatment-seeking sample of Marines (N = 138) to compare career-progression. In Phase 1, there were no significant links between demographic, military, and clinical characteristics and referral source or receipt of career-affecting treatment recommendations. In Phase 2, MH treatment-seeking Marines in outpatient settings were more likely than matched controls to be separated from the military (95.0% versus 63.0%, p = 0.002), but no more likely to experience involuntary separation. MH treatment-seeking Marines were more likely to have documented legal action (45.0% versus 23.9%, p = 0.008) and had a shorter time of military service following the index MH encounter than matched controls (p < 0.001). Clinical, anti-stigma, and suicide prevention policy implications are discussed.

The association between discharge status, mental health, and substance misuse among young adult veterans

Although 85% of military service members are discharged honorably, veterans who engage in misconduct during military service may receive other types of administrative or punitive discharges. The discharge type not only affects eligibility for benefits, but is associated with negative downstream consequences (e.g., homelessness, criminal justice involvement). However, limited empirical research has examined the mental health and substance use-related needs of veterans who were not Honorably discharged, and the few that have only focus on veterans who received punitive discharges. This study addressed gaps in the research literature on discharge status by examining differences in mental health, substance use, and attitudes toward psychological treatment among veterans who received Honorable, General Under Honorable Conditions, and Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharges. Young adult veterans (N = 734) were recruited online and completed a battery of self-report measures. Results indicated that veterans who received General and OTH discharges endorsed significantly greater rates of mental health conditions and substance misuse. They also reported more negative perceptions of mental health care. Because these veterans may also experience more barriers to accessing mental health services, it is critical to consider ways to connect these veterans with needed services.

Non-routine Discharge From Military Service: Mental Illness, Substance Use Disorders, and Suicidality

INTRODUCTION

Mental illness and substance use disorders among newly returned military service members pose challenges to successful reintegration into civilian life and, in extreme cases, may lead to outcomes such as incarceration, homelessness, and suicide. One potential early indicator for these difficulties is non-routine discharge from military service.

METHODS

Using data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for 443,360 active duty service Veterans who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and subsequently utilized VHA services between Fiscal Years 2004 and 2013, this study examined risk for receiving a VHA-documented diagnosis of mental illness, substance use disorders, and suicidality as a function of discharge type, controlling for demographic and military service covariates. Analyses were conducted in 2016.

RESULTS

In total, 126,314 Veterans (28.5%) had a non-routine military service discharge. Compared with routinely discharged Veterans, odds for nearly all diagnostic outcomes were significantly greater among Veterans discharged for disqualification or misconduct, including personality disorders (AOR=9.21 and 3.29, respectively); bipolar/psychotic disorders (AOR=3.98 and 3.40); alcohol/substance use disorders (AOR=1.55 and 4.42); and suicidal ideation and behaviors (AOR=2.81 and 2.77). Disability-discharged Veterans had significantly higher odds for diagnoses of anxiety disorders (AOR=1.97) and bipolar/psychotic disorders (AOR=3.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-routine service discharge strongly predicts VHA-diagnosed mental illness, substance use disorders, and suicidality, with particularly elevated risk among Veterans discharged for disqualification or misconduct. Results emphasize the importance of discharge type as an early marker of adverse post-discharge outcomes, and suggest a need for targeted prevention and intervention efforts to improve reintegration outcomes among this vulnerable subpopulation.

Posttraumatic stress disorder post Iraq and Afghanistan: prevalence among military subgroups

A large body of research has been produced in recent years investigating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among military personnel following deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, resulting in apparent differences in PTSD prevalence. We compare prevalence estimates for current PTSD between military subgroups, providing insight into how groups may be differentially affected by deployment. Systematic literature searches using the terms PTSD, stress disorder, and acute stress, combined with terms relating to military personnel, identified 49 relevant papers. Studies with a sample size of less than 100 and studies based on data for treatment seeking or injured populations were excluded. Studies were categorized according to theatre of deployment (Iraq or Afghanistan), combat and noncombat deployed samples, sex, enlistment type (regular or reserve and [or] National Guard), and service branch (for example, army, navy, and air force). Meta-analysis was used to assess PTSD prevalence across subgroups. There was large variability in PTSD prevalence between studies, but, regardless of heterogeneity, prevalence rates of PTSD were higher among studies of Iraq-deployed personnel (12.9%; 95% CI 11.3% to 14.4%), compared with personnel deployed to Afghanistan (7.1%; 95% CI 4.6% to 9.6%), combat deployed personnel, and personnel serving in the Canadian, US, or UK army or the navy or marines (12.4%; 95% CI 10.9% to 13.4%), compared with the other services (4.9%; 95% CI 1.4% to 8.4%). Contrary to findings from within-study comparisons, we did not find a difference in PTSD prevalence for regular active-duty and reserve or National Guard personnel. Categorizing studies according to deployment location and branch of service identified differences among subgroups that provide further support for factors underlying the development of PTSD.

Posttraumatic stress disorder: neurocircuitry and implications for potential deep brain stimulation

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and highly disabling psychiatric disorder that is notoriously difficult to treat. At some point in their lifetimes, 5-8% of men, 10-14% of women, and up to a quarter of combat veterans carry this diagnosis. Despite pharmacological and behavioral therapies, up to 30% of patients are still symptomatic 10 years after initial diagnosis. Recent advances in imaging have implicated changes in the limbic and autonomic corticostriatopallidothalamocortical (CSPTC) circuitry in the pathogenesis of this disease. Deep brain stimulation modulates CSPTC circuits in movement and other neuropsychiatric disorders. In this review, we discuss the salient clinical features and neurocircuitry of PTSD and propose a neuromodulation strategy for the disorder.

Treating Violent Impulses

The growing attention to acts of interpersonal violence and misconduct among military members has accompanied a host of research investigating the nature and causes associated with these behaviors. As such, a robust body of literature exists lending insight into risk factors and clinical presentations associated with anger and aggression; however, such factors are multidimensional and complex, particularly for those suffering with war stress injuries. Furthermore, mental health stigma and treatment compliance with exposure and cognitive-based models, particularly in clients with aggressive presentations, can impact successful outcomes. One active-duty marine was referred to an outpatient mental health clinic for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Four sessions of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) were used to significantly reduce obsessive violent impulses, traumatic grief, and depression. The benefit of EMDR therapy as a treatment for violent impulses is explored. The results are promising, but more research is needed.

Predictors of risk and resilience for posttraumatic stress disorder among ground combat Marines: methods of the Marine Resiliency Study

The Marine Resiliency Study (MRS) is a prospective study of factors predictive of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among approximately 2,600 Marines in 4 battalions deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. We describe the MRS design and predeployment participant characteristics. Starting in 2008, our research team conducted structured clinical interviews on Marine bases and collected data 4 times: at predeployment and at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postdeployment. Integrated with these data are medical and career histories from the Career History Archival Medical and Personnel System (CHAMPS) database. The CHAMPS database showed that 7.4% of the Marines enrolled in MRS had at least 1 mental health diagnosis. Of enrolled Marines, approximately half (51.3%) had prior deployments. We found a moderate positive relationship between deployment history and PTSD prevalence in these baseline data.