Search

Objectives: This study reports preliminary findings on the prevalence of, and factors associated with, mental health and well-being outcomes of healthcare workers during the early months (April-June) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK., Methods: Preliminary cross-sectional data were analysed from a cohort study (n=4378). Clinical and non-clinical staff of three London-based NHS Trusts, including acute and mental health Trusts, took part in an online baseline survey. The primary outcome measure used is the presence of probable common mental disorders (CMDs), measured by the General Health Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are probable anxiety (seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder), depression (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (six-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder checklist), suicidal ideation (Clinical Interview Schedule) and alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test). Moral injury is measured using the Moray Injury Event Scale., Results: Analyses showed substantial levels of probable CMDs (58.9%, 95% CI 58.1 to 60.8) and of PTSD (30.2%, 95% CI 28.1 to 32.5) with lower levels of depression (27.3%, 95% CI 25.3 to 29.4), anxiety (23.2%, 95% CI 21.3 to 25.3) and alcohol misuse (10.5%, 95% CI 9.2 to 11.9). Women, younger staff and nurses tended to have poorer outcomes than other staff, except for alcohol misuse. Higher reported exposure to moral injury (distress resulting from violation of one's moral code) was strongly associated with increased levels of probable CMDs, anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms and alcohol misuse., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that mental health support for healthcare workers should consider those demographics and occupations at highest risk. Rigorous longitudinal data are needed in order to respond to the potential long-term mental health impacts of the pandemic., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RoR reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL (Wellcome Trust) rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative and EFPIA, RADAR-CNS consortium, grants from MRC, grants from NIHR, outside the submitted work. SH reports grants from NIHR, grants from Wellcome Trust, grants from ESRC, grants from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Charity, grants from MRC, grants from UKRI, outside the submitted work; and a member of the following advisory groups: The Health Foundation – COVID-19 Research Programme Panel, NHS England and NHS Improvement – Patient and Carers Race Equalities Framework (PCREF) Steering Group, NHS England and NHS Improvement – Advancing Mental Health Equalities Taskforce, Health Education England – Mental Health Workforce Equalities Subgroup, Maudsley Learning – Maudsley Learning Advisory Board, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) – Independent Advisory Groups, the SLaM Partnership Group, Lambeth Public Health – Serious Youth Violence Public Health Task and Finish Group, NHS England – Workforce Race Equality Standard Advisory Group, Thrive London – Thrive London Advisory Board, Black Thrive – Black Thrive Advisory Board. Commissions: Welsh Government’s Race Equality Plan; contribution to the evidence review for Health and Social Care and Employment and Income policy areas. SAMS reports grants from UKRI/ESRC/DHSC, grants from UCL, grants from UKRI/MRC/DHSC, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together Fund, during the conduct of the study. NG reports a potential COI with NHSEI, during the conduct of the study; and the managing director of March on Stress Ltd, which has provided training for a number of NHS organisations although NG is not clear if the company has delivered training to any of the participating trusts or not as NG does not get directly involved in commissioning specific pieces of work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: While most UK military personnel transition successfully into civilian life, some experience unemployment and disability, which may be partly attributable to in-service factors. This study aims to determine the degree to which in-service mental health problems impact on postservice benefit claims., Methods: Using data from a cohort of 5598 recent leavers from regular service in the UK Armed Forces linked with data from the Department for Work and Pensions, we assessed associations between in-service mental health and postservice benefit claims, and the population attributable fraction (PAF) of benefit claims related to in-service mental health. An analysis with postservice mental ill health as mediator was performed to determine the degree to which the observed effects were a consequence of persistent illness, as opposed to remitted., Results: Mental illness occurring in-service predicted both unemployment and disability claims, partly mediated by postservice health (23%-52% total effects mediated), but alcohol misuse did not. Common mental disorder (CMD) (PAF 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.11) and probable post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (PAF 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) contributed to unemployment claims. Probable PTSD was the largest contributor to disability claims (PAF 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.36), with a smaller contribution from CMD (PAF 0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.27)., Conclusions: In-service mental ill health gives rise to benefit claims. These effects are only partly mediated by postservice mental health, implying that in-service (or pre-service) mental issues have carry-over effects into civilian life even if remitted. Better prevention and treatment of in-service PTSD symptoms may well reduce postservice disability claims., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RJR and HB report grants from ministry of defence and grants from Forces in Mind Trust during the conduct of the study. NG reports personal fees from King’s College London, during the conduct of the study, and is the Royal College of Psychiatrists Lead for Military and Veterans Health and also a trustee for two military charities. He was not required to act in any particular way by these organisations in relation to the paper. NTF and SW have nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: In the first study of its kind in the UK, we linked pensions data on benefit claims with data from the King's Military Cohort to assess uptake of unemployment and disability benefits in military veterans of the UK Armed Forces., Methods: Benefits data were matched with data on the mental health, demographics and military-related variables for 7942 veterans who had previously served as regulars and transitioned to civilian life between 2003 and 2016. Associations between demographic and service-related factors and benefit claims were assessed using Cox regression to take into account period at risk., Results: Around 20% of veterans claim unemployment benefits (UB) shortly after leaving, but this proportion drops rapidly to around 2% in the first 2 years post service. Receipt of disability benefits (DB) is less common (1.5%), but longer-term. The most consistent predictors of postservice benefit usage were: low rank (a proxy for socio-economic status while in service) (HR 1.42 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.65) for UB and 1.59 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.27) for DB); leaving service (HR 1.29 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.56) between unplanned leaving and UB, and 7.51 (95% CI 5.31 to 10.6) between medical discharge and DB), and having a history of claiming benefits before joining the Services (HR 1.62 (95% CI 1.34 to 1.95) between preservice and postservice UB, and 2.86 (95% CI 1.09 to 7.47) between preservice and postservice DB)., Conclusions: Benefit claims by veterans are largely driven by socioeconomic, rather than military, factors. Additional employment-focused support to Service leavers may be particularly useful to lower-ranked personnel and those leaving in an unplanned way. Continuity of care and medical oversight is a key concern for those with medical discharges., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Dr RJR and Dr HB report grants from Ministry of Defence (MOD), grants from Forces in Mind Trust (FiMT), during the conduct of the study. Dr NG reports personal fees from King’s College London, during the conduct of the study, and is the Royal College of Psychiatrists Lead for Military and Veterans Health and also a trustee for two military charities. He was not required to act in any particular way by these organisations in relation to the paper. Professor NF and Professor SW have nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: We evaluated a military resilience intervention which aimed to help UK military recruits to manage their personal health and well-being more effectively., Methods: Trainers within six pre-existing training teams were randomly allocated by team to deliver a resilience-based intervention (SPEAR) or usual training (control) during recruit training. 23 trainers delivered SPEAR; 18 delivered the control training. 707 recruits participated (n=358 SPEAR and n=349 controls). Outcome measures were obtained before and after recruit training and 3 months later. Measures of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), common mental disorder (CMD) symptoms, alcohol use, homesickness and mental health stigmatisation were obtained at baseline. Repeat baseline scales plus measures of help-seeking, cohesion, leadership and training impact were obtained at the two follow-up points., Results: Response rates were 91.7% (baseline), 98.1% (post) and 73.6% (follow-up). Following adjustment for potential confounders, levels of PTSD, CMD symptoms, alcohol misuse, help-seeking and homesickness were not significantly different between groups at any measurement point. Stigmatisation was significantly lower among SPEAR recipients at baseline but was not significantly different at the two follow-up points. Following adjustment for mental health confounders, there were no significant between-group differences in perceptions of leadership and cohesion and in ratings of six training outcomes at the two follow-up points., Conclusions: We found no evidence that resilience-based training had any specific benefit to the health and well-being of UK military recruits., Competing Interests: Competing interests: At the time of the study NJ, NG, LH and CW were based at King’s College London which, for the purpose of the study and other military-related studies, receives funding from the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD). AM was based with the military organisation that provided the training element of the intervention tested in the study and participated in training delivery. AM was blind to the collection and analysis of the study outcomes. NJ, NG, LH, CW and AM’s salaries were totally or partially paid by the UK MoD. The UK MoD provides support to the Academic Department of Military Mental Health, and the salary of NJ is covered totally by this contribution. NG is the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Lead for Military and Veterans’ Health, a trustee of Walking with the Wounded, and an independent director at the Forces in Mind Trust; however, he was not directed by these organisations in any way in relation to his contribution to this study. NJ is a full-time member of the UK armed forces seconded to King’s College London., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To establish the level of psychological symptoms and the risk factors for possible decreased mental health among deployed UK maritime forces., Methods: A survey was completed by deployed Royal Navy (RN) personnel which measured the prevalence of common mental disorder (CMD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and potential alcohol misuse. Military and operational characteristics were also measured including exposure to potentially traumatic events, problems occurring at home during the deployment, unit cohesion, leadership and morale. Associations between variables of interest were identified using binary logistic regression to generate ORs and 95% CIs adjusted for a range of potential confounding variables., Results: In total, 41.2% (n=572/1387) of respondents reported probable CMD, 7.8% (n=109/1389) probable PTSD and 17.4% (n=242/1387) potentially harmful alcohol use. Lower morale, cohesion, leadership and problems at home were associated with CMD; lower morale, leadership, problems at home and exposure to potentially traumatic events were associated with probable PTSD; working in ships with a smaller crew size was associated with potentially harmful alcohol use., Conclusions: CMD and PTSD were more frequently reported in the maritime environment than during recent land-based deployments. Rates of potentially harmful alcohol use have reduced but remain higher than the wider military. Experiencing problems at home and exposure to potentially traumatic events were associated with experiencing poorer mental health; higher morale, cohesion and better leadership with fewer psychological symptoms., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: To explore the psychological consequences of improvised explosive device (IED) exposure as IEDs have been the greatest threat to UK military personnel in Afghanistan though the mental health consequences of IED exposure are largely unknown., Method: Deployed UK military personnel completed a survey while deployed in Afghanistan. Combat personnel and those dealing specifically with the IED threat were compared with all other deployed personnel; the relationship between IED exposure, general combat experiences, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C) and General Health Questionnaire scores were evaluated., Results: The response rate was 98% (n=2794). Half reported IED-related concerns, a third experienced exploding IEDs and a quarter gave medical aid to IED casualties. Combat and counter-IED threat personnel had higher levels of IED exposure than other deployed personnel. 18.8% of personnel who witnessed exploding IEDs scored positive for common mental disorder (General Health Questionnaire-12 scores ≥4) and 7.6% scored positive for probable PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version scores ≥44). After adjusting for general combat exposure and other observed confounders, PTSD symptoms were associated with IED exposure whereas common mental disorder symptoms were not. IED exposure, IED-related concerns and functional impairment accumulated during deployment but functional impairment was related to factors other than IED exposure alone., Conclusions: In Afghanistan, a substantial proportion of personnel were exposed to exploding IEDs however, the majority of exposed personnel were psychologically healthy. Psychological effects were similar for combat personnel and those dealing specifically with the IED threat but both groups were at greater psychological risk than other deployed personnel., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: Third Location Decompression (TLD) is an activity undertaken by UK Armed Forces (UK AF) personnel at the end of an operational deployment which aims to smooth the transition between operations and returning home. We assessed whether TLD impacted upon both mental health and postdeployment readjustment., Method: Data collected during a large cohort study was examined to identify personnel who either engaged in TLD or returned home directly following deployment. Propensity scores were generated and used to calculate inverse probability of treatment weights in adjusted regression analyses to compare mental health outcomes and postdeployment readjustment problems., Results: TLD had a positive impact upon mental health outcomes (post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and multiple physical symptoms) and levels of harmful alcohol use. However, when the samples were stratified by combat exposure, although postdeployment readjustment was similar for all exposure levels, personnel experiencing low and moderate levels of combat exposure experienced the greatest positive mental health effects., Conclusions: We found no evidence to suggest that TLD promotes better postdeployment readjustment; however, we found a positive impact upon alcohol use and mental health with an interaction with degree of combat exposure. This study suggests that TLD is a useful postdeployment transitional activity that may help to improve PTSD symptoms and alcohol use in UK AF personnel.

To determine the current state of knowledge regarding the effects of deployment length and a 'mismatch' between the expected and actual length of deployments on the health and well-being of military personnel in order to draw relevant conclusions for all organisations that deploy personnel to conflict zones. A systematic review was conducted of studies measuring deployment length to theatres of operations and the issue of 'mismatch' between expected and actual tour lengths. The nine studies included were rated for quality. Of the nine studies reviewed, six were rated as high quality, two as moderate quality and one as low quality. Seven of these studies found adverse effects of longer deployments on health and well-being. The two studies that measured 'mismatch' found adverse effects on mental health and well-being when deployments lasted longer than personnel expected. There are a limited number of studies which have assessed the effects of deployment length and very few that have assessed the effects of 'mismatch' on health and well-being. However, this review suggests that, as deployment length increases, the potential for personnel to suffer adverse health effects also increases. Further research is required to investigate the effects of spending prolonged periods of time away from family and friends, especially when deployment lasts longer than expected by personnel. These results are important not only for the Armed Forces, but also for other organisations that place employees in similar working conditions. Taking account of these findings may allow better preparation for the potentially harmful effects that deployments can have on employees' health and well-being.