https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2104-921X
Figures
Abstract
Background
Self-harm and suicide behaviours are a major public health concern. Several factors are associated with these behaviours among military communities. Identifying these factors may have important implications for policy and clinical services. The aim of this review was to identify the risk and protective factors associated with self-harm and suicide behaviours among serving and ex-serving personnel of the United Kingdom Armed Forces, Canadian Armed Forces, Australian Defence Force and New Zealand Defence Force.
Methods
A systematic search of seven online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs and CINAHL) was conducted alongside cross-referencing, in October 2022. Following an a priori PROSPERO approved protocol (CRD42022348867), papers were independently screened and assessed for quality. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach.
Results
Overall, 28 papers were included: 13 from Canada, 10 from the United Kingdom, five from Australia and none from New Zealand. Identified risk factors included being single/ex-relationship, early service leavers, shorter length of service (but not necessarily early service leavers), junior ranks, exposure to deployment-related traumatic events, physical and mental health diagnoses, and experience of childhood adversity. Protective factors included being married/in a relationship, higher educational attainment, employment, senior ranks, and higher levels of perceived social support.
Conclusion
Adequate care and support are a necessity for the military community. Prevention and intervention strategies for self-harm and suicide behaviours may be introduced early and may promote social networks as a key source of support. This review found a paucity of peer-reviewed research within some populations. More peer-reviewed research is needed, particularly among these populations where current work is limited, and regarding modifiable risk and protective factors.
Citation: Williamson C, Croak B, Simms A, Fear NT, Sharp M-L, Stevelink SAM (2024) Risk and protective factors for self-harm and suicide behaviours among serving and ex-serving personnel of the UK Armed Forces, Canadian Armed Forces, Australian Defence Force and New Zealand Defence Force: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 19(4): e0299239. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299239
Editor: Darrell Eugene Singer, Uniformed Services University: Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, UNITED STATES
Received: November 3, 2023; Accepted: February 6, 2024; Published: April 26, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Williamson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data availability is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Funding: This work is part of a PhD nested within Phase 4 of the King’s Centre for Military Health Research Health and Wellbeing Cohort Study and funded by the Office of Veterans' Affairs, Cabinet Office, UK Government [Contract ref: CCZZ20A88] (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-veterans-affairs). NTF and SAMS secured the funding for Phase 4 of the King’s Centre for Military Health Research Health and Wellbeing Cohort Study, and CW is currently in receipt of the funded PhD studentship. The funder played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: CW is currently in receipt of a funded PhD studentship via Phase 4 of the King’s Centre for Military Health Research Health and Wellbeing Cohort Study funded by the Office for Veterans’ Affairs (OVA), Cabinet Office, UK Government. BC is currently in receipt of a funded PhD studentship from The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK Government. AS is a full-time member of the British Army seconded to King’s College London. NTF is partly funded by the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence (MOD). MLS is fully funded by a grant from the OVA. SAMS is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research, NIHR Advanced Fellowship, Dr Sharon Stevelink, NIHR300592. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the OVA, the ESRC, the British Army, the MOD, the NHS, or the NIHR. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to PLOS ONE. Any conflicts of interest have been outlined in the manuscript. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
1. Introduction
Self-harm and suicide behaviours are a major public health concern, with over 700,000 people dying by suicide and an estimated 14.6 million people engaging in self-harm each year globally [1,2]. The aetiology and onset of these behaviours is complex and multifaceted; prevalence and risk are influenced by several factors including age, sex, ethnicity, geographical region and occupation [3–5]. Military populations are a potentially at-risk group as military service impacts on the health and wellbeing of personnel during and after service [6]. Self-harm and death by suicide appear to be relatively rare among the military community, although rates of both behaviours have increased in recent years but remain either lower or comparable to the general population [7–12]. Suicide behaviours can present as ideation (i.e. thoughts) and attempts which are also prevalent among serving and ex-serving personnel; a reported 11% global prevalence of these behaviours in the entire military [13], with prevalence varying slightly between serving and ex-serving personnel for both suicidal ideation (serving = 10%; ex-serving = 14%) and suicide attempts (serving = 8%; ex-serving = 15%) [13].
Previous research has reported that serving and ex-serving personnel with mental health diagnoses are at risk of self-harm and suicide behaviours, for example post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [14–18]. Another specific at-risk group includes those separated from the military [19–21], especially if separation occurred involuntarily (e.g. medical discharge) [22]. Additionally, younger age is a risk factor [22–24]; a recent UK study reported suicide risk was two-to-three times higher in men and women under 25 years old who had left service (vs the general population) [24]. Ex-serving personnel with a shorter length of service (<10 years of service) were also at increased risk [24]. Protective factors have been less frequently explored, but include social support (i.e. the availability and adequacy of social connections [25]) [26,27], higher educational attainment [28], employment [29] and holding a more senior rank (e.g. officer) [15,18].
There remains a paucity of research exploring the risk and protective factors for self-harm and suicide behaviours among several military populations, with available literature focussing on a limited number of countries. This review focused on military populations from four nations of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance [30]: namely the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Five Eyes nations (which also includes the United States (US)) have a combined military population estimated at 2.6 million, are all developed countries which share a common language, have similarities in society and culture, broadly similar military involvement, and well-resourced military healthcare systems [31]. Of the limited systematic reviews in the field, studies on US military populations make up all or the majority of included papers [27,32,33]. To address this gap in the literature, the current review focuses on the remaining four Five Eyes nations where attention has been limited previously. Additionally, the US was excluded due to differences in firearms culture, including access, licensing and laws which affects access to means of suicide; a recent systematic review highlighted that US veterans are at substantially increased risk of firearm suicide and have higher rates of firearm ownership than the US general population [34].
The current systematic review aimed to identify risk and protective factors associated with self-harm and suicide behaviours among serving and ex-serving personnel of the UK Armed Forces, Canadian Armed Forces, Australian Defence Force and New Zealand Defence Force.
2. Method
2.1. Design
This systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [35]. Prior to commencing the review, the protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022348867), an online database of systematic review protocols submitted prospectively to maintain research integrity.
2.2. Search strategy
Seven electronic databases were searched in October 2022: PubMed (including MEDLINE and PubMed Central), Web of Science, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs and CINAHL. All databases were searched using pre-defined terms related to: (1) self-harm and suicide behaviours, (2) the military, and (3) geographical locations. See S1 Table in S1 File for full search strategy.
The search included all original, peer-reviewed work that identified risk and/or protective factors associated with self-harm and/or suicide behaviours both during (serving personnel) and after (ex-serving personnel/veterans) military service. Restrictions were placed on publication dates from 1st January 2001 to 30th September 2022 to allow for the coverage of the start of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Additionally, these limits were chosen due to better availability and quality of literature in the field of military medicine since 2001 [36].
PROSPERO was searched to identify any ongoing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of relevance. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other relevant studies were searched, including identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses of relevance. If the full-text of a paper was not available online, authors were contacted for access. At least one expert in the field of military self-harm and/or suicide behaviour research from each nation was contacted to ensure key papers had been identified. Experts were identified via the Five Eyes Mental Health Research and Innovation Collaboration [37].
2.3. Study selection criteria
Eligibility was determined using the following criteria:
- Published in English
- Original, peer-reviewed work
- Published 1st January 2001 to 30th September 2022
- Studies that reported risk and/or protective factors for outcomes of self-harm, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and/or completed suicide
- Population comprising of serving and/or ex-serving personnel (Regulars/Reservists; Navy/Army/Air Force/Marines) from the UK Armed Forces, Canadian Armed Forces, Australian Defence Force or New Zealand Defence Force
- If military only made up part of the reported sample, only papers that reported on outcomes for serving/ex-serving personnel separate from the other population (e.g., general population) were included
It is important to note the term ‘veteran’ is defined and used differently across nations. For instance, in the UK a veteran is defined as someone who has served a minimum of one day paid employment in the UK Armed Forces but no longer serves [38], this can include those who deployed or not and is irrespective of their type of discharge. However, in Canada, a veteran is any former member of the Canadian Armed Forces who successfully underwent basic training and is honourably discharged [39]. Therefore, for the purpose of this review, we adopted the term ‘ex-serving personnel’ to mean someone who served in the Armed Forces but no longer serves, irrespective of deployment experience or type of discharge.
Exclusion criteria included:
- Study design: qualitative, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, pilot studies, case-control studies, case reports/series, study protocols, grey literature, conference abstracts/papers, dissertations/theses, and editorials
- Outcomes of assisted suicide (i.e. the act of deliberately assisting another person to kill themselves [40]) and suicide bombing (i.e. a terrorist bomb attack in which the perpetrator expects to die whilst killing a number of other people)
- Studies that only included a population sample of conscripts (i.e., people compulsorily enlisted into the military), cadets or officer students
2.4. Screening and data extraction
Following the initial search, all identified studies were imported into Endnote 20 and duplicates were removed. CW independently reviewed the titles/abstracts of all papers. Subsequently, the full papers for the remaining studies identified as relevant were then reviewed. The reference lists of all included papers were manually searched for any additional papers of relevance (i.e., cross-referencing). BC independently performed second reviewer screening on a sample of studies (10% at title/abstract screening stage and 20% at full text screening stage). The reviewers (CW and BC) independently decided which studies met the eligibility criteria to be included in the review and, at full text screening stage, noted any reasons for exclusion. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Interrater reliability was calculated at each screening stage; agreement was 99% at title/abstract and 100% at full-text stage.
The following data were extracted independently by CW for all included papers where available:
- General information: title, lead author, publication date, journal title, location/country of study
- Study characteristics: study aim, study design and methods, response rate (where relevant), sample size, data collection date
- Sample characteristics: age in years (mean, median or range), sex distribution, ethnicity, population type (e.g., clinical/non-clinical)
- Military characteristics: serving status (serving/ex-serving), engagement type (regular/reserve), service branch (Army, Naval Services, Air Force), rank (other, non-commissioned, commissioned), deployment experience (e.g., number and duration of deployments), era of service (e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan era)
- Outcomes: outcome type (i.e., self-harm, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, completed suicide), definition of outcome, how outcome was measured
- Risk and protective factors associated with self-harm and/or suicide behaviour outcomes
- Study findings: conclusions, limitations, future research
Statistical findings are reported in S2 Table in S1 File. Where available, adjusted odds ratios or effect estimates have been presented. Otherwise unadjusted results have been reported and clearly identified.
2.5. Data synthesis
To examine the risk and protective factors associated with self-harm and suicide behaviours, a narrative synthesis was performed. This approach was chosen due to heterogeneity across studies, for example, variation in sample sizes, target populations and outcomes [41]. Due to variation across included studies, such as differences in study design and outcome measurements, and the large number of risk and protective factors identified, it was neither practical nor feasible to conduct a meta-analysis as part of this review.
2.6. Quality assessment
The quality of each included paper was assessed independently by CW using the National Heart, Blood and Lung Institute (NHBLI) tailored quality assessment tools [42]. BC independently performed second reviewer quality assessment on a sample of papers (20%). Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Papers were not excluded based on their quality, instead, results from the assessment provided additional insight into the quality of research in the field.
3. Results
Overall, 4,576 papers were identified, of which 497 duplicates were removed (Fig 1). The title/abstracts of 4,079 papers were screened, leaving 94 papers at full-text stage. Experts in the field identified no additional peer-reviewed papers and cross-referencing identified one additional paper of relevance. Overall, 28 papers met the inclusion criteria (S3 Table in S1 File).
3.1.Study characteristics
Included studies used a range of study designs; 23 cohort studies [15,18,28,29,43–61] and five retrospective cohort studies [62–66]. The majority of papers were from Canada (n = 13) [43,45–47,50–52,56–58,65,66] and the UK (n = 10) [15,18,53,54,59–64]. The remaining papers were from Australia (n = 5) [28,29,48,49,55], but none were from New Zealand. Papers explored military samples of ex-serving personnel only (n = 12) [45–48,50,56–58], serving personnel only (n = 8) [28,29,49,51–54,59,62–64,66] and mixed samples of serving and ex-serving personnel (n = 8) [15,18,43,44,55,60,65,67]. Of the 28 included papers, 24 included mixed male and female samples, however the percentage of male participants typically ranged from around 85% to 99% [15,18,29,43,45–47,50–66]. Of the remaining four papers, three used all male samples [28,48,49] and one did not explicitly report on the sex of the sample directly within the paper [44].
3.2.Quality assessment
Most papers received a quality assessment score of ‘fair’ (n = 21), and the rest scored ‘good’ (n = 7) (S4 Table in S1 File). Common reasons for lower scores included lacking a sample size justification/power description, not assessing the exposure variables more than once, and not using outcome measures which were clearly defined, valid and reliable.
3.3.Reported self-harm and suicide behaviour outcomes
Included papers reported on a range of outcomes outlined in Table 1. Four papers reported on self-harm only [15,60–62], nine reported on suicidal ideation only [43–45,51–53,58,59,65], two on suicide attempts only [29,57] and three on completed suicides only [63,64,66]. The remaining 10 papers reported on a mix of these outcomes, typically referred to as ‘suicidality’ (often including outcomes of suicidal ideation, suicide plans and suicide attempts) [18,28,46–50,54–56].
3.4.Definition and measurement of self-harm and suicide behaviour outcomes
Only six papers provided a definition for the outcomes of interest (Table 1), with the remaining papers failing to report why these terms were not defined.
The majority of papers used self-report surveys (n = 17) [15,29,43–47,50,53,55–58,60,61,65]. Two papers collected data via structured clinical interviews [51,52] and four utilised a mix of self-report surveys and structured clinical interviews [18,28,48,49]. One study employed clinical assessment [59]. The remaining papers used International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes to define and measure the outcome of interest [62–64,66].
A variety of outcome measures were used to collect data on the outcomes of self-harm and suicidal behaviours (Table 1). For instance, ICD codes [62–64,66], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [43,65], Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised [15,18] and Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised [53].
3.5.Risk factors
Numerous risk and protective factors were identified in the review with varying levels of statistical significance (Table 2).
3.5.1. Risk factors for self-harm.
Pre-enlistment factors increased the risk of self-harm, including experiencing childhood adversity and abuse than those without these experiences (approximately doubling the risk) [15,60]. Certain demographic groups were also at heightened risk, including younger age groups [15,60,61] compared to middle/older age groups, and those no longer in a relationship (i.e., separated/divorced) [60] compared to in a relationship. There were discrepancies between studies regarding the impact of sex, with two studies reporting the risk of self-harm was increased for females [18,60] but one study stated increased risk for males [62]. Military characteristics associated with increased risk of self-harm included having left service, with ex-serving personnel reported to be as much as three times more at risk of self-harm than serving personnel or non-military population depending on sample explored [15,18,60,62]. Other military characteristics that increased the risk of self-harm included being an early service leaver, defined within the relevant papers as <4 years [54] and ≤2.5 years [62] of service. This was also apparent for those with a shorter length of service (but not an early service leaver), for instance 4 to 6 years of service [62].
Several health-related factors also increased risk of self-harm. The factors with some of the largest effect sizes (ranging from approximately two to eight times more likely) included clinical or probable diagnosis of PTSD [15,18,62], depression [15,18], and anxiety [18,62], as well as history of suicidal ideation [18]. Other risk factors for self-harm included a lack of social support [60], mental health-related stigmatisation [18], perceived practical barriers to care [18], negative attitudes to mental illness [18], and formal medical help-seeking [18] (all approximately tripling risk).
3.5.2. Risk factors for suicide behaviours.
Similar risk factors were identified for suicide behaviours (i.e., suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and completed suicide). Pre-enlistment factors, such as experience of childhood adversity and abuse were found to increase the risk of suicide compared to those without these experiences (ranging from two to seven times more likely) [48–50,56,59]. Certain demographic characteristics increased the risk of suicide behaviours, including being single or no longer in a relationship (i.e., separated, divorced, widowed) [45,48,51,55], lower educational attainment (i.e., less than university degree level) [48], and unemployment [29,59]. Another identified risk factor for suicide behaviours was a lack of social support [43]. The influence of age remains unclear, as studies reported a variety of age groups to be at increased risk of suicide behaviours [43,48,63,64,66]; for instance younger age groups (e.g., 16 to 24 years [64]), younger/middle age groups (e.g., <25 to 44 years [66]), and a mixture of age groups (i.e., 25 to 45+ years [48]).
Numerous military characteristics increased the risk of suicide behaviours, including being medically discharged from service [55], holding a more junior rank during service [48,49,66] (e.g., non-commissioned officer or other lower ranks [48,49]), serving as a Reservist (vs Regular) [18], and shorter intervals since return from last Afghanistan deployment (i.e., <4 years) [58]. Being an early service leaver was another factor that increased risk of suicide behaviours, defined within the relevant papers as ≤3 years [63] and <4 years [54,59] of service (e.g., increased risk by as much as eight-fold [59]). Although not referred to as early service leavers, having a shorter length of service (i.e. one to four years) was also a risk factor for completed suicide among a sample of UK ex-serving personnel [64]. Experience of deployment-related traumatic events [44,46,47,50,56–58] and exposure to trauma [44,48,49,53,57] were other factors associated with increased risk of suicide behaviours.
Several health-related factors were positively associated with suicide behaviours among serving and ex-serving personnel. These included number of physical health disorders (small effect size of just over one) [51] and number of mental health disorders (odds ranging from around two to 20 times more likely) [45,51,52]. More specifically, clinical or probable diagnosis of PTSD [18,28,29,44,45,50,55], depression [18,28,44,45,48–51,55,65], anxiety [18,28,45,49,50,55], alcohol use disorder [28,45,50,55], cannabis use [28], mood disorder [51], insomnia [45], or panic attacks [50] (ranging from just over one to 15 times more likely). Other risk factors included a higher number of perceived practical barriers to care, negative attitudes to mental illness, and formal medical help-seeking [18]. Further, lifetime suicidal ideation was reported as a risk factor for lifetime suicide attempts among a sample of serving and ex-serving personnel (up to 12 times more likely) [18].
3.6.Protective factors
A number of protective factors were also identified (Table 2).
3.6.1. Protective factors for self-harm.
Several factors were identified that decreased the risk of self-harm, including middle/older age groups [18,60,62] (e.g. 35 to 49+ years [18]) compared to other age groups, and experience of less adversity during childhood (i.e., less than three factors) [15]. Certain military characteristics reduced the likelihood of self-harm, for example holding a more senior rank (i.e., officer vs junior ranks) [15,18], being a Reservist (vs Regular) [60], and having a longer length of service [15,62] (e.g., ≥23 years [62]). Further, a higher level of perceived social support was associated with a lower likelihood of self-harm [18,60] (e.g., a score of 33–36 on the multidimensional scale of perceived social support [18]).
3.6.2. Protective factors for suicide behaviours.
When considering suicide behaviours (i.e., suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and completed suicide), several identified factors reduced risk. Certain demographics were significantly associated with decreased risk of suicide behaviours including being female [64], middle age groups (e.g. 35 to 54 years compared to those <35 years) [59], having a current significant relationship (i.e., being married or in a relationship; approximately half as likely than those no longer in relationships) [48,49,64], higher educational attainment (vs lower educational attainment) [48,49] (e.g., higher than Year 10 [48,49]), and being employed (vs unemployed) [29].
Several military characteristics decreased the risk of suicide behaviours, including holding a more senior rank (vs junior ranks) [18,64] (e.g., officer rank [64]), service in the Royal Air Force [18,64] or Naval Services [64] (vs Army), and certain deployment-related factors such as higher cumulative duration of Afghanistan-related deployments (i.e., ≥361 days) [58], and less time away on deployment in the past three years (i.e., up to two years) [58] (all approximately half as likely). Higher levels of perceived social support [18,44] (e.g., a score of 33–36 on the multidimensional scale of perceived social support [18]), and taking longer than five years to seek support (vs less than five years) [59] were also identified factors that reduced the likelihood of suicide behaviours.
4. Discussion
This review identified 28 papers reporting on a range of factors associated with self-harm and suicide behaviours among serving and ex-serving personnel of the UK Armed Forces, Canadian Armed Forces, and Australian Defence Force.
A variety of definitions and measurements were used for the outcomes reported in the included papers. Definition is an important aspect of academic research and clinical practice, yet precise definitions have been contested, and current terminology varies across nations [68]. For instance, there are several terms for self-harm, including non-suicidal self-injury, deliberate self-harm and self-inflicted violence. Definitions of mental health conditions and the use of consistent language are an important starting point within good quality research papers and are also important for reducing stigma and encouraging individuals to seek help, particularly relating to self-harm and suicide behaviours [69].
Several of the identified risk factors reflect those among the general population [3,70], serving and ex-serving military personnel of the US Armed Forces [27,33], and other similar occupational groups (such as emergency responders) [71], and were generally consistent across the included geographical regions. Some similar identified risk factors for suicide among the US military community include mental health diagnoses (e.g. mood, alcohol/substance, psychotic and personality disorders), and experience of childhood adversities [27].
Although no relevant peer-reviewed papers were identified from New Zealand, suicide prevention work is being conducted [72]. Risk factors for suicide among the New Zealand Defence Force include current mental health concerns, acute life stressors and negative attitudes towards help-seeking, and protective factors include positive mental health and social support [72]. The paucity of peer-reviewed work from New Zealand may be due to the smaller military population of the New Zealand Defence Force compared to the military populations of other included nations, making large quantitative studies more difficult.
It is important to recognise that some risk and protective factors were not always consistent across included studies in this review, and the influence of age, sex, certain military service characteristics, and certain health diagnoses remains unclear. For instance, having served as a Reservist increased the likelihood of suicide behaviours [18] but decreased the likelihood of self-harm [60], highlighting the need for a holistic approach when supporting military communities. It is important to develop an enhanced understanding about motivations for engaging in self-harm and suicide behaviours, as for some self-harm acts as a coping mechanism to regulate internal emotions, whereas suicide behaviours become more apparent when the individual can no longer cope [73].
One key risk factor for self-harm was having left service. Potentially the transition from serving to ex-serving is a period of risk and support should be in place during this time. It might be that after leaving service, ex-serving personnel no longer feel like part of the military ‘family’, experience a shift in their sense of self and have difficulty connecting to civilian life [74]. Alternatively, it could reflect the influence of time as ex-serving personnel are typically older, and therefore, if considering lifetime prevalence and risk, this would capture a longer period of time. Additionally, there may be an underrepresentation among serving personnel as they are potentially more hesitant to report these behaviours due to stigma and fear of negative consequences to their career [75]; personnel with ill health (physical or mental) may be forced to leave service (i.e. medical discharge) and those who involuntarily separate from the military are at high risk of self-harm and suicide behaviours [22,76,77].
Poor health was another key identified risk factor, in particular clinical or probable diagnosis of PTSD, depression and anxiety. This highlights the importance of early detection of mental health problems, providing adequate care and support to military personnel throughout their military career, and providing continuity of care as they transition out of service. Interestingly, seeking help from formal medical sources was positively associated with lifetime suicide attempts [18] and taking more than five years to seek help was negatively associated with suicidal ideation [59]. It is unlikely that seeking help from formal medical sources has a causal relationship with suicide behaviours. Instead, UK research has found that ex-serving personnel are known to present to clinical services at times of crisis, which might involve an active episode of self-harm or suicide behaviours, therefore, placing them more at risk [78]. Additionally, those who delay seeking help for longer may have discovered ways to cope with their difficulties on their own, whereas those who seek help sooner may have been in crisis and at higher risk of suicidal ideation [59]. Clearly, a key challenge relating to self-harm and suicide behaviour risk is prevention. Most developed nations already have suicide prevention strategies in place, including for serving and ex-serving personnel, or as part of the wider mental health strategy [79–82]. The findings of this review suggest that prevention and intervention strategies should focus on the broader context of improving health and wellbeing (physical, mental, and social health).
Less research focussed on protective factors for self-harm and suicide behaviours among the included military populations. Despite this, one key association was with higher levels of perceived social support [18,44], indicating that this was likely a salient factor that could help prevent or mitigate risk, particularly due to its modifiable nature. This aligns with other international military populations, including the US [83], as well as in the general population where social support has been recommended for use in suicide prevention strategies [84]. One way to bolster social support among military populations is the use of peer support as a preventative strategy [85,86].
4.1. Strengths and limitations
A strength of this review was the search of seven literature databases using a broad search strategy outlined in an a priori PROSPERO approved review protocol. The protocol was generally followed but any changes were reflected by updating the protocol (i.e., removing the limit around the age of the sample). Additionally, a proportion of the eligibility assessment and critical appraisal of papers was conducted by a second, independent reviewer with high inter-rater reliability. Including a wider range of geographical regions may have led to more included papers (e.g., Na et al (2021) [87]), however focus this review aimed to address the literature gap by collating evidence where attention has previously been limited.
There were some limitations to note. As with all systematic reviews, the findings of this review were subject to publication bias. Additionally, some potential associated factors received less attention than others, however this review tried to provide the best synthesis of the evidence currently available.
There were also several limitations relating to the included papers. First, papers used different definitions and measurements of self-harm and suicide behaviours, limiting the possibility of comparing findings across studies. However, combining these papers in a review contributes to understanding. Second, there is no universally agreed definition of veterans (i.e., ex-serving personnel) which makes cross-cultural comparison difficult. Third, studies did not always report on some military characteristics (such as service branch, rank, deployment experience, era of service and time since leaving service) and demographic characteristics (such as ethnicity and sexuality) which would have been useful for contextualisation and interpretation of the findings. There remains limited understanding of the impact of sex, experiences of ethnic minority and LGBTQ+ personnel. Fourth, included studies used a variety of sample sizes (range n = 144 to 233,803), study procedures, and sample characteristics. For example, the majority of papers relied on self-reported data which may have been subject to recall bias and social desirability bias. Finally, the included papers did not allow for meta-analyses to be conducted due to heterogeneity in the populations and outcomes.
4.2. Implications
This review has several important implications for policy, practice, and research. The identification of risk and protective factors can be useful to inform military health services and policies including where to target suicide prevention policy to reduce the incidence and impact of suicide. In the UK, this is one of nine key health priority themes laid out in the Defence People Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2022–2027 [88].
Identifying the risk and protective factors for self-harm and suicide behaviour outcomes is an important aspect of the development and implementation of effective prevention and intervention strategies to protect the mental health and wellbeing of military populations. Evidence on associated factors can inform healthcare practice and service provision for the Armed Forces community by highlighting several at-risk groups which may require additional support. This review suggests that additional support is required during the period of transition from military to civilian life but also highlights the importance of prevention early on in military service to reduce the impact on personnel as they transition out of service. The identified protective factors suggest that prevention and intervention strategies should focus on encouraging help-seeking for mental health problems early on before crisis events occur, as well as promoting social support networks and strengthening connections with family, friends and the community as a whole.
Additionally, focus should be placed on modifiable factors (i.e., factors that could reasonably be altered, such as psychiatric symptoms and social support). Although non-modifiable factors can help to identify level of risk, they are of less use during prevention and intervention as they cannot be changed to alter the level of risk. Therefore, particular focus on modifiable risk and protective factors is warranted as they are amenable to therapeutic intervention and can be key to addressing long-term risk due to their adaptive nature. However, it is still important to understand the role of non-modifiable factors as there may be an indirect effect, for example when considering military rank, it might be that officers are at lower risk of self-harm and suicide behaviours because they typically hold higher socio-economic status and higher educational attainment [89] which are known protective factors.
Future studies should also focus on conducting longitudinal investigations which distinguish between pre-, peri- and post-service factors in order to identify pathways of self-harm and suicide behaviours, and to ensure support is in place at the right point in the military lifecycle.
5. Conclusions
This review highlighted several risk and protective factors for self-harm and suicide behaviours which warrant attention. Adequate care and support are a necessity for serving and ex-serving personnel who may be at risk of experiencing self-harm or suicide behaviours. Particular focus should be placed on implementing prevention strategies early on in military service to reduce the impact on personnel as they transition out of service. The identified protective factors suggest that prevention and intervention strategies should promote social networks as a key source of support for military personnel. Whilst this review was limited due to the paucity of peer-reviewed research within some populations, current work, such as that being undertaken in New Zealand will add to the understanding. Research should continue to progress towards understanding and preventing self-harm and suicide behaviours among military populations.
Supporting information
S1 File.
S1. Concepts and Keywords Used in Database Searches. S2. Key Findings of Included Papers. S3. List of Included Papers. S4. Quality Assessment. S5. PRISMA Checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299239.s001
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Colonel Clare Bennett, Chief Mental Health Officer New Zealand Defence Force, for sharing relevant work being conducted in New Zealand.
References
- 1.
Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (GBD 2019) results. Seattle; 2020. Available: https://www.healthdata.org/results/gbd_summaries/2019/self-harm-level-3-cause.
- 2.
World Health Organisation (WHO). Suicide: Key Facts. 2019 [cited 12 May 2021]. Available: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide.
- 3. Knipe D, Padmanathan P, Newton-Howes G, Chan LF, Kapur N. Suicide and self-harm. Lancet. 2022;399: 1903–1916. pmid:35512727
- 4.
Office for National Statistics. Deaths from suicide that occurred in England and Wales: April to December 2020. 2022 [cited 15 Jul 2022]. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsfromsuicidethatoccurredinenglandandwales/apriltodecember2020.
- 5. Bresin K, Schoenleber M. Gender differences in the prevalence of nonsuicidal self-injury: A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2015;38: 55–64. pmid:25795294
- 6. Stevelink SAM, Jones M, Hull L, Pernet D, Maccrimmon S, Goodwin L, et al. Mental health outcomes at the end of the British involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts: A cohort study. Br J Psychiatry. 2018;213: 690–697. pmid:30295216
- 7.
Ministry of Defence. Suicides in the UK regular armed forces: Annual summary and trends over time. 1 January 1984 to 31 December 2022. 2023. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1145999/UK_armed_forces_suicides_1984_to_2022.pdf.
- 8. Ravindran C, Morley SW, Stephens BM, Stanley IH, Reger MA. Association of Suicide Risk With Transition to Civilian Life Among US Military Service Members. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3: e2016261–e2016261. pmid:32915235
- 9.
Government of Canada. Suicide in Canada. In: Government of Canada [Internet]. 2021 [cited 16 Aug 2022]. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/suicide-prevention/suicide-canada.html.
- 10. Stuart J, Bennett C. Mental Health in the NZDF–Insights for Suicide Prevention. 2021.
- 11. Bandel SL, Anestis MD. Non-suicidal self-injury among male service members: Descriptive information and a preliminary examination of external correlates. Psychiatry Res. 2020;285: 112815. pmid:32036153
- 12. Turner BJ, Kleiman EM, Nock MK. Non-suicidal self-injury prevalence, course, and association with suicidal thoughts and behaviors in two large, representative samples of US Army soldiers. Psychol Med. 2019;49: 1470–1480. pmid:30131080
- 13. Moradi Y, Dowran B, Sepandi M. The global prevalence of depression, suicide ideation, and attempts in the military forces: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of cross sectional studies. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21. pmid:34654386
- 14. Kimbrel NA, Johnson ME, Clancy C, Hertzberg M, Collie C, Van Voorhees EE, et al. Deliberate Self-Harm and Suicidal Ideation Among Male Iraq/Afghanistan-Era Veterans Seeking Treatment for PTSD. J Trauma Stress. 2014;27: 474–477. pmid:25066891
- 15. Pinder RJ, Iversen AC, Kapur N, Wessely S, Fear NT. Self-harm and attempted suicide among UK Armed Forces personnel: Results of a cross-sectional survey. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2012;58: 433–439. pmid:21693487
- 16. Ramchand R, Rudavsky R, Grant S, Tanielian T, Jaycox L. Prevalence of, Risk Factors for, and Consequences of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Other Mental Health Problems in Military Populations Deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015;17: 1–11.
- 17. Holliday R, Borges LM, Stearns-Yoder KA, Hoffberg AS, Brenner LA, Monteith LL. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Suicidal Ideation, and Suicidal Self-Directed Violence Among U.S. Military Personnel and Veterans: A Systematic Review of the Literature From 2010 to 2018. Front Psychol. 2020;11. pmid:32982838
- 18. Jones N, Sharp M-L, Phillips A, Stevelink SAM. Suicidal Ideation, Suicidal Attempts, and Self-Harm in the UK Armed Forces. 2019. pmid:31290563
- 19. Reger MA, Smolenski DJ, Skopp NA, Metzger-Abamukang MJ, Kang HK, Bullman TA, et al. Risk of Suicide Among US Military Service Members Following Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom Deployment and Separation From the US Military. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72: 561–569. pmid:25830941
- 20. Ravindran C, Morley SW, Stephens BM, Stanley IH, Reger MA. Association of Suicide Risk With Transition to Civilian Life Among US Military Service Members. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3: e2016261–e2016261. pmid:32915235
- 21. Pease JL, Billera M, Gerard G. Military Culture and the Transition to Civilian Life: Suicide Risk and Other Considerations. Soc Work. 2016;61: 83–86. pmid:26898003
- 22. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members who have served since 1985: suicide monitoring 1997 to 2020. 2022.
- 23.
Ministry of Defence. Deliberate Self Harm (DSH) in the UK Armed Forces. 1 April 2010–31 March 2018. 2019. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/919761/20181221_Adhoc_Statistical_Bulletin_DSH_in_the_UK_Armed_Forces_O.pdf.
- 24. Rodway C, Ibrahim S, Westhead J, Bojanić L, Turnbull P, Appleby L, et al. Suicide after leaving the UK Armed Forces 1996–2018: A cohort study. Bergman B, editor. PLOS Med. 2023;20: e1004273. pmid:37552686
- 25. Uchino BN. Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. J Behav Med. 2006;29: 377–387. pmid:16758315
- 26. Elbogen EB, Molloy K, Wagner HR, Kimbrel NA, Beckham JC, Van Male L, et al. Psychosocial protective factors and suicidal ideation: Results from a national longitudinal study of veterans. J Affect Disord. 2020;260: 703–709. pmid:31561113
- 27. Nock MK, Deming CA, Fullerton CS, Gilman SE, Goldenberg M, Kessler RC, et al. Suicide among soldiers: a review of psychosocial risk and protective factors. Psychiatry. 2013;76: 97–125. pmid:23631542
- 28. O’Toole BI, Orreal-Scarborough T, Johnston D, Catts S V., Outram S. Suicidality in Australian Vietnam veterans and their partners. J Psychiatr Res. 2015;65: 30–36. pmid:25914085
- 29. Kerr K, Romaniuk M, McLeay S, Khoo A, Dent MT, Boshen M. Increased risk of attempted suicide in Australian veterans is associated with total and permanent incapacitation, unemployment and posttraumatic stress disorder severity. Aust New Zeal J Psychiatry. 2018;52: 552–560. pmid:28707521
- 30.
Tossini J V. The Five Eyes–The Intelligence Alliance of the Anglosphere. In: UK Defence Journal [Internet]. 2020. Available: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-five-eyes-the-intelligence-alliance-of-the-anglosphere/#!.
- 31.
International Institute for Strategic Studies. The Military Balance 2019. London: Routledge; 2019. Available: https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/the-military-balance-2019.
- 32. Bryan CJ, Griffith JE, Pace BT, Hinkson K, Bryan AO, Clemans TA, et al. Combat Exposure and Risk for Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among Military Personnel and Veterans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Suicide Life-Threatening Behav. 2015;45: 633–649. pmid:29889337
- 33.
Haney EM, O’Neil ME, Carson S, Low A, Peterson K, Denneson LM, et al. Suicide Risk Factors and Risk Assessment Tools: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Washington (DC); 2012. Available: Department of Veterans Affairs (US).
- 34. Theis J, Hoops K, Booty M, Nestadt P, Crifasi C. Firearm Suicide Among Veterans of the U.S. Military: A Systematic Review. Mil Med. 2021;186: e525–e536. pmid:33231686
- 35. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6. pmid:19621072
- 36. Şenel E. Evolution of military medicine literature: a scientometric study of global publications on military medicine between 1978 and 2017. BMJ Mil Heal. 2020;166: e25–e33. pmid:31005890
- 37.
Canadian Institute for Military Veteteran and Family Health Research. Five Eyes Mental Health Research and Innovation Collaborative (Five Eyes MHRIC). Available: https://annual-report.cimvhr.ca/impact/five-eyes.
- 38.
Office for Veterans’ Affairs. Veterans Factsheet 2020. In: UK Government [Internet]. 2020 [cited 16 Aug 2022]. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874821/6.6409_CO_Armed-Forces_Veterans-Factsheet_v9_web.pdf.
- 39.
Government of Canada. Mandate, Mission, Vision, Values and Ethics. 2023. Available: https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-vac/what-we-do/mandate#definition.
- 40.
NHS Digital. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. In: NHS Digital [Internet]. 2020 [cited 16 Aug 2022]. Available: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/.
- 41. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. 2006.
- 42.
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Study Quality Assessment Tools. In: NHLBI Website [Internet]. 2021 [cited 16 Aug 2022]. Available: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools.
- 43. Ketcheson F, King L, Richardson JD. Association between social support and mental health conditions in treatment-seeking Veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel. J Mil Veteran Fam Heal. 2018;4: 20–32.
- 44. Nelson C, Cyr K St., Corbett B, Hurley E, Gifford S, Elhai JD, et al. Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and suicidal ideation among Canadian Forces personnel in a National Canadian Military Health Survey. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45: 1483–1488. pmid:21752395
- 45. Richardson JD, Thompson A, King L, Corbett B, Shnaider P, St. Cyr K, et al. Insomnia, psychiatric disorders and suicidal ideation in a National Representative Sample of active Canadian Forces members. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17: 211. pmid:28583100
- 46. Sareen J, Cox BJ, Afifi TO, Stein MB, Belik S-L, Meadows G, et al. Combat and Peacekeeping Operations in Relation to Prevalence of Mental Disorders and Perceived Need for Mental Health Care. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64: 843. pmid:17606818
- 47. Sareen J, Afifi TO, Taillieu T, Cheung K, Turner S, Stein MB, et al. Deployment-Related Traumatic Events and Suicidal Behaviours in a Nationally Representative Sample of Canadian Armed Forces Personnel. Can J Psychiatry. 2017;62: 795–804. pmid:28490190
- 48. Syed Sheriff R, Van Hooff M, Malhi G, Grace B, McFarlane A. Childhood determinants of suicidality: comparing males in military and civilian employed populations. Psychol Med. 2019;49: 2421–2431. pmid:30419985
- 49. Syed Sheriff R, Van Hooff M, Malhi GS, Grace B, McFarlane A. Childhood determinants of suicidality in men recently transitioned from regular military service. Aust New Zeal J Psychiatry. 2020;54: 743–754. pmid:32536196
- 50. Taillieu TL, Sareen J, Afifi TO. Associations among child abuse history, deployment‐related traumatic events, mental disorders, and suicidal behaviors in Canadian Regular Force personnel. J Trauma Stress. 2022;35: 1060–1071. pmid:35727709
- 51. Thompson JM, Zamorski MA, Sweet J, VanTil L, Sareen J, Pietrzak RH, et al. Roles of physical and mental health in suicidal ideation in Canadian Armed Forces Regular Force veterans. Can J Public Heal. 2014;105: e109–e115. pmid:24886845
- 52. Thompson JM, Dursun S, VanTil L, Heber A, Kitchen P, de Boer C, et al. Group identity, difficult adjustment to civilian life, and suicidal ideation in Canadian Armed Forces Veterans: Life After Service Studies 2016. J Mil Veteran Fam Heal. 2019;5: 100–114.
- 53. Williamson V, Murphy D, Stevelink SAM, Allen S, Jones E, Greenberg N. The impact of moral injury on the wellbeing of UK military veterans. BMC Psychol 2021 91. 2021;9: 1–7. pmid:33952352
- 54. Woodhead C, Rona RJ, Iversen A, MacManus D, Hotopf M, Dean K, et al. Mental health and health service use among post-national service veterans: Results from the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey of England. Psychol Med. 2011;41: 363–372. pmid:20406527
- 55. Varker T, Cowlishaw S, Baur J, McFarlane AC, Lawrence-Wood E, Metcalf O, et al. Problem anger in veterans and military personnel: Prevalence, predictors, and associated harms of suicide and violence. J Psychiatr Res. 2022;151: 57–64. pmid:35453092
- 56. Afifi TO, Taillieu T, Zamorski MA, Turner S, Cheung K, Sareen J. Association of Child Abuse Exposure With Suicidal Ideation, Suicide Plans, and Suicide Attempts in Military Personnel and the General Population in Canada. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73: 229. pmid:26817953
- 57. Belik S-L, Stein MB, Asmundson GJ, Sareen J. Relation between Traumatic Events and Suicide Attempts in Canadian Military Personnel. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54: 93–104. pmid:19254440
- 58. Boulos D, Fikretoglu D. Influence of military component and deployment-related experiences on mental disorders among Canadian military personnel who deployed to Afghanistan: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2018;8: e018735. pmid:29530906
- 59. Harden L, Murphy D. Risk factors of suicidal ideation in a population of UK military veterans seeking support for mental health difficulties. J R Army Med Corps. 2018;164: 352–356. pmid:29950298
- 60. Hines LA, Jawahar K, Wessely S, Fear NT. Self-harm in the UK military. Occup Med (Chic Ill). 2013;63: 354–357. pmid:23749802
- 61. Jones M, Jones N, Burdett H, Bergman BP, Fear NT, Wessely S, et al. Do Junior Entrants to the UK Armed Forces have worse outcomes than Standard Entrants? BMJ Mil Heal. 2021; bmjmilitary-2021-001787. pmid:33879526
- 62. Bergman BP, Mackay DF, Smith DJ, Pell JP. Non-fatal self-harm in Scottish military veterans: a retrospective cohort study of 57,000 veterans and 173,000 matched non-veterans. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019;54: 81–87. pmid:30145625
- 63. Bergman BP, Mackay DF, Pell JP. Suicide among Scottish military veterans: follow-up and trends. Occup Environ Med. 2022;79: 88–93. pmid:34649999
- 64. Kapur N, While D, Blatchley N, Bray I, Harrison K. Suicide after Leaving the UK Armed Forces—A Cohort Study. Hotopf M, editor. PLoS Med. 2009;6: e1000026. pmid:19260757
- 65. Richardson JD, King L, St. Cyr K, Shnaider P, Roth ML, Ketcheson F, et al. Depression and the relationship between sleep disturbances, nightmares, and suicidal ideation in treatment-seeking Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18: 204. pmid:29921268
- 66. VanTil LD, Simkus K, Rolland-Harris E, Heber A. Identifying release-related precursors to suicide among Canadian Veterans between 1976 and 2012. J Mil Veteran Fam Heal. 2021;7: 13–20.
- 67. Irizar P, Leightley D, Stevelink S, Rona R, Jones N, Gouni K, et al. Drinking motivations in UK serving and ex-serving military personnel. Occup Med (Chic Ill). 2020;70: 259–267. pmid:31961932
- 68. Wilson E, Ougrin D. Commentary: Defining self-harm: how inconsistencies in language persist–a commentary/reflection on Ward and Curran (2021). Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2021;26: 372–374. pmid:34414651
- 69. Perkins A, Ridler J, Browes D, Peryer G, Notley C, Hackmann C. Experiencing mental health diagnosis: a systematic review of service user, clinician, and carer perspectives across clinical settings. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5: 747–764. pmid:29680468
- 70. Favril L, Yu R, Uyar A, Sharpe M, Fazel S. Risk factors for suicide in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological autopsy studies. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022;25: 148. pmid:36162975
- 71. Stanley IH, Hom MA, Joiner TE. A systematic review of suicidal thoughts and behaviors among police officers, firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics. Clin Psychol Rev. 2016;44: 25–44. pmid:26719976
- 72. Stuart J, Bennett C. Mental Health in the NZDF–Insights for Suicide Prevention. 2021.
- 73. Brereton A, McGlinchey E. Self-harm, Emotion Regulation, and Experiential Avoidance: A Systematic Review. Arch Suicide Res. 2020;24: 1–24. pmid:30636566
- 74. Guthrie-Gower S, Wilson-Menzfeld G. Ex-military personnel’s experiences of loneliness and social isolation from discharge, through transition, to the present day. PLoS One. 2022;17: e0269678. pmid:35666756
- 75. Sharp M-L, Fear NT, Rona RJ, Wessely S, Greenberg N, Jones N, et al. Stigma as a Barrier to Seeking Health Care Among Military Personnel With Mental Health Problems. Epidemiol Rev. 2015;37: 144–162. pmid:25595168
- 76. Coleman SJ, Stevelink SAM, Hatch SL, Denny JA, Greenberg N. Stigma-related barriers and facilitators to help seeking for mental health issues in the armed forces: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative literature. Psychol Med. 2017;47: 1880–1892. pmid:28290262
- 77. Varker T, Cowlishaw S, Baur J, McFarlane AC, Lawrence-Wood E, Metcalf O, et al. Problem anger in veterans and military personnel: Prevalence, predictors, and associated harms of suicide and violence. J Psychiatr Res. 2022;151: 57–64. pmid:35453092
- 78. Mellotte H, Murphy D, Rafferty L, Greenberg N. Pathways into mental health care for UK veterans: a qualitative study. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2017;8: 1389207. pmid:29163864
- 79.
Government of Canada. Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada Joint Suicide Prevention Strategy. 2017 [cited 3 Jul 2023]. Available: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/reports/2017/caf-vac-joint-suicide-prevention-strategy.pdf.
- 80.
Veterans Affairs New Zealand. The Veteran, Family and Whānau Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy Framework. 2022 [cited 3 Jul 2023]. Available: https://www.veteransaffairs.mil.nz/about-veterans-affairs/our-programmes/mental-health-framework.
- 81.
Department of Veterans Affairs. Veteran Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy and National Action Plan 2020–2023. 2020 [cited 3 Jul 2023]. Available: https://www.dva.gov.au/documents-and-publications/veteran-mental-health-and-wellbeing-strategy-and-national-action-plan#download_docs.
- 82.
Department of Defense. Preventing Suicide in the U.S. Military: Recommendations from the Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee. 2023 [cited 3 Jul 2023]. Available: https://media.defense.gov/2023/Feb/24/2003167430/-1/-1/0/SPRIRC-FINAL-REPORT.PDF.
- 83. Dempsey CL, Benedek DM, Nock MK, Zuromski KL, Brent DA, Ao J, et al. Social closeness and support are associated with lower risk of suicide among U.S. Army soldiers. Suicide Life-Threatening Behav. 2021;51: 940–954. pmid:34196966
- 84. Hou X, Wang J, Guo J, Zhang X, Liu J, Qi L, et al. Systematic review Methods and efficacy of social support interventions in preventing suicide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid Based Ment Heal. 2022;25: 29–35. pmid:34911688
- 85. Beehler S, LoFaro C, Kreisel C, Dorsey Holliman B, Mohatt N V. Veteran peer suicide prevention: A community‐based peer prevention model. Suicide Life-Threatening Behav. 2021;51: 358–367. pmid:33876481
- 86.
Ministry of Defence. Suicide prevention and peer support in the armed forces: A pocket guide by the Samaritans. In: 2018 [Internet]. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/919726/Samaritans_Armed_Forces_guide.pdf.
- 87. Na PJ, Tsai J, Hill ML, Nichter B, Norman SB, Southwick SM, et al. Prevalence, risk and protective factors associated with suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic in U.S. military veterans with pre-existing psychiatric conditions. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;137: 351–359. pmid:33756377
- 88.
UK Government. Defence People Health and Wellbeing Strategy—2022 to 2027. 2022 [cited 27 Jun 2022]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-people-health-and-wellbeing-strategy-2022-to-2027.
- 89.
The Sutton Trust, Social Mobility Commission. Elitist Britain 2019: The educational background of Britain’s leading people. 2019. Available: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Elitist-Britain-2019-Summary-Report.pdf.