Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

The evolution of mental health outcomes across a combat deployment cycle: A longitudinal study of the Guam Army National Guard

  • Dale W. Russell ,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Consortium for Health and Military Performance, Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America

  • Cristel Antonia Russell

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Pepperdine University, Graziadio Business School, Malibu, California, United States of America


4 Mar 2020: The PLOS ONE Staff (2020) Correction: The evolution of mental health outcomes across a combat deployment cycle: A longitudinal study of a Guam-based National Guard unit. PLOS ONE 15(3): e0230140. View correction


In the United States, National Guard soldiers have been called upon at unprecedented rates since 2001 to supplement active duty military forces. Frequent military deployments generate many occupational and environmental stressors for these citizen-soldiers, from serving in a dangerous zone to being away from family and home for long periods of time. Whereas there is a substantial amount of research focused on deployment-related health outcomes in relation to active duty (i.e., full-time) military populations, reserve forces are less understood. This study focuses on a United States Army National Guard combat unit deployed to Afghanistan. This prospective longitudinal study was conducted over the course an operational deployment cycle (i.e., before, during, and after) to document the evolution of salient mental health outcomes (i.e., post-traumatic stress, depression, general anxiety, and aggression). The findings show that both combat (e.g., killing others) and non-combat (e.g., boredom) stressors negatively affect mental health outcomes, and the severity of these outcomes increases over the course of a deployment cycle. Of special note, the study reveals key gender differences in the evolution of post-traumatic stress (PTS), depression, and anxiety across a deployment cycle: females report increased PTS, depression, and anxiety 6 months post-deployment, whereas the levels reported by males stabilize at their mid-deployment levels. The findings offer insights for medical providers and policymakers in developing more targeted health promotion campaigns and interventions, especially at the post-deployment phase.


The evolution of mental health outcomes across a combat deployment cycle: A study of a Guam-based National Guard Unit

Despite the growth of research on military populations, the underlying factors and full implications of sustained contemporary military operations on the health and well-being of servicemembers are still not fully understood [1]. In relation to the United States (US) military, one shortcoming is that the extant literature has given more focus to the active component (AC; i.e., the full-time force) servicemembers, resulting in a knowledge gap concerning the heavily relied upon reserve component (RC; i.e., part-time force). In the US, the RC comprises the federally controlled Army Reserve (USAR) and the state controlled National Guard (NG).

The roots of the NG dates back to 1636, when citizen-soldiers formed militia units to defend their local communities [2]. The NG is a unique population within the Army as it is not only charged with providing the bulk of the RC’s combat forces (the USAR’s focus is on support forces) for military operations but it is also charged with supporting state government domestic missions, which range from responding to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and supporting law enforcement during civil unrest [34]. Since the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the US military has been continually engaged in global operations which have placed an unprecedented level of pressure on the NG given numerous combat deployments, in addition to domestic missions [2].

As a result, the NG has been exposed to numerous unique stressors which have manifested into higher levels of mental health (MH) issues compared to their AC/RC peers [1, 58]. These outcomes are further frustrated by the fact that NG personnel often lack access to treatment options [910]. Despite such circumstances, the NG remains relatively understudied [1112]; furthermore, little research has accounted for the unique cultural and socio-economic differences across the 54 states and territories, which could serve to inform health and well-being outcomes [13]. As such, this understudied population warrants research attention to identify risk and protective factors associated with its occupational exposures and enhance its health and well-being needs [1112]. This research therefore seeks to improve our understanding of the risk/protective factors among NG SMs who are intermittently exposed to both military and civilian occupational exposures to help enhance their health and well-being [7, 14].

Key health implications associated with military service

In the US, a large number of servicemembers and veterans continue to suffer MH and maladaptive behavioral issues despite the numerous programs that strive to mitigate the negative outcomes associated with military service [1516]. Among the MH issues, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) remains a forefront concern and persists in military and veteran populations [17]. Military population PTSD rates are higher than those observed in the general population [1820]. The core symptoms of PTSD include hyperarousal, avoidance, numbing, and re-experiencing of trauma [2122]; its etiology is distinctive amongst other MH outcomes in that the defining traumatic event can usually be identified, thus allowing for a more precise cause-and-effect relationship [2324]. Although PTSD is a key concern within military populations, it is often comorbid with other MH outcomes (e.g., depression and suicidal ideation) as well as problematic substance use [2526]; for example, those with PTSD are seven times more likely to concurrently suffer from depression compared to those without PTSD [2728].

Servicemembers face a variety of environmental stressors during a military deployment. One of the most documented stressors is combat exposure (e.g., fighting, killing/injuring others, threat to oneself, exposure to death/injury, and witnessing atrocities) known to trigger negative MH and maladaptive behavioral outcomes (e.g., substance abuse and misuse) [10, 29]. In addition to combat stressors, which can ebb and flow, servicemembers face a number of more constant deployment-related environmental stressors, which include boredom, tedious and monotonous workloads, poor food quality, a lack of personal time and space, inability to maintain hygiene, difficulty in maintaining social support relationships with family and friends back home, as well as interpersonal issues with their unit’s leadership [3031, 8].

These issues are particularly salient for RC servicemembers who often struggle with the rapid transition between military and civilian life when both called up for and released from active duty [3234]. For instance, reservists returning from a deployment often exhibit increased levels of maladaptive behaviors (e.g., aggressive behavior and substance use) and negative MH outcomes (e.g., depression and PTSD), whether or not they were exposed to combat [7, 3537]. Despite the known outcomes associated with deployment-related environmental stressors, they have not garnered much research attention compared to direct combat stressors [38]. Yet, previous research shows that many non-combat deployment factors contribute to veterans’ ill health [39]. As such, a prospective longitudinal approach is needed to provide better insights concerning the relationship between how exposure military stressors, both combat and non-combat, evolve into MH and maladaptive behavioral issues over the course of a deployment cycle [40].

Context and research question

The issues listed above are particularly salient in the context of this study, which was conducted with an infantry unit from the Guam Army National Guard. The US Territory of Guam is considered a strategic linchpin in regards to the US’s ability to project power in the Asia-Pacific region [41]. Guam is one of four inhabited Marianas Islands; the islands are administratively distinct in that Guam is classified as a US Territory while the other islands constitute a US Commonwealth. Guam was initially colonized by the Spanish but became a US possession after Spain’s defeat in the Spanish American War of 1898. Guam is noted as being more Americanized than the other Marianas Islands, likely due to close-nit political relationship with the US, which largely revolves around the island’s importance in hosting several large Navy and Air Force commands; indeed, Guam’s main economic stimulation comes from the US defense industry, followed by tourism [42]. The large presence of US military forces has not only impacted Guam’s economy stability but also its populace as a large number gravitate to military service [43]. Many from Guam join the military not only to as means for personal development (i.e., pay and benefits) but also to serve their country; additionally, following the brutal occupation of the island by Japan during World War II, serving in the US military has been a means by which to help protect the nationhood of Guam [44]. Culturally speaking, Chamorro men rely on military service to affirm their masculinity [44]. Indeed, the number of recruits joining the military was on the rise in Guam during the height of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the other states and territories were experiencing declines in recruiting [45].

Although Guam has had a militia dating back to 1771, while under Spanish rule, the current rendition of the NG stems from its establishment under US rule in 1917 [46]. The majority of this study’s participants were Chamorro (i.e., the indigenous people of the Mariana Islands). In part due to the large presence of the US military since World War II, there has been an inflow of non-natives to Guam; the population is now comprised of less than 50% Chamorro, with the current ethnic composition as follows: 37.3% Chamorro, 26.3% Filipino, 7.1% White, 7.3% Asian, 9% other Pacific Islander, 6% other Asian [42]. Although the Chamorro make up than half of Guam’s population, they comprise the majority of the Guam NG. While the focus on servicemembers from Guam may not generalize to the wider US or other military forces, this context represents a unique and understudied segment of the military in which to test the evolution of mental health issues over the course of a deployment and to assess how individual factors (e.g., gender and age) and experiences during deployment may affect these evolutions.


This study utilizes a prospective longitudinal research design with data collected at three time points: pre-, mid- and post-deployment. Prospective longitudinal studies are suited to differentiate between short and long-term influences and serve to establish time-ordered associations between environmental exposures/stressors and health/behavioral outcomes compared to cross-sectional and retrospective studies [47]. This approach enhances the robustness of analyses by allowing an assessment of medical outcome trajectories. Unfortunately, this approach is seldom used in military studies due to logistical difficulties and resource limitations and, to our knowledge, it has not been undertaken before in such a manner with a NG cohort.

Study approval

Study approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) Uniformed Services University and the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. Additionally, as NG personnel fall under the control of the states and territories to which they are assigned, general study approval was also obtained from the National Guard Bureau and the unit’s Adjutant General (i.e., the overall commanding officer). For the deployment phase of the study, general study authorization was obtained from North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the US Central Command, which were responsible for servicemembers serving in Afghanistan.

Study sample

The sample of reservists was drawn from an infantry brigade from the Guam Army National Guard that deployed to Afghanistan between April 2013 and January 2014. The brigade comprises 585 servicemembers, which represents ~48% of the territory’s entire force. Baseline pre-deployment survey data (N = 526; 89.9% of the unit’s total) were collected in April 2013 at the unit’s mobilization station several days before it deployed to Afghanistan. Data could not be collected from the entire unit prior to deployment as approximately 50 servicemembers had deployed ahead of the main unit to make preparations; however, these servicemembers were given an opportunity to partake in the remaining data collections. Mid-deployment survey data (N = 571; 97.6% of the unit’s total) were collected throughout Afghanistan in September and October 2013. Not all servicemembers were available due to mission requirements (e.g., on patrol); additionally, two servicemembers were killed in action prior to the mid-deployment data collection. Post-deployment survey data (N= 472; 80.7% of the unit’s total) were collected approximately six months post-deployment, when mental and behavioral health issues often develop [4849]. Post-deployment data were collected at the unit’s primary home base in July and August 2014; however, some data were collected from servicemembers who were receiving medical care at Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawai’i in August 2014.

Informed consent and data collection processes

For all data collections, servicemembers attended a recruitment briefing during routine duty hours that outlined the study’s purpose and their rights. During the briefing, servicemembers were encouraged to ask questions. Those wishing to partake in the study were required to complete an informed consent form at each time point; the consent forms were secured separately from the surveys to help maintain anonymity. Upon submitting their informed consent form, respondents were provided with a paper survey. Respondents were informed that they could skip any questions that made them uncomfortable and cease the study at any time. To help maximize the longitudinal study respondents’ confidentiality, surveys were de-identified using an anonymous self-generated sequential code (e.g., PPS1423) as to allow the linkage of individual respondent surveys across the three timepoints. To do so, as in previous military research, respondents listed the last character of their mother’s maiden name, day of their birth month, and year of their birth, the first digit of their birth month and the first letter of the city where they were born [50].

The surveys were matched with probabilistic record linkage based on the self-generated codes [51] in order to connect as many timepoints as possible. Given that this conservative matching process generated only 248 respondents matched at all three time points, the analyses adopted a multilevel modeling approach instead of the more constraining repeated measures approach.

Survey measurements

Validated measures used in both previous military and civilian studies were administered at each of the three timepoints.

Mental and behavioral health measures.

Post-traumatic stress: PTS symptomology was assessed using the 17-item PTSD Checklist (PCL-17; α= .98) [19, 52]. The PCL-17 lists all intrusion, avoidance, and arousal PTSD symptoms. Respondents rated each item on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely) and the sum of these responses provided an indicator of PTS symptom severity (17-item summation). Respondents with sum scores ≥ 50 were considered a positive screen for PTSD [19].

Depression: Depressive symptomology was assessed using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire subscale (PHQ-9) [53]. The sum of the 9 items provides an indicator of depression severity with probable major depression defined as endorsing five or more of the nine symptoms present “more than half the days” or “most days” in the past two weeks [5354].

Generalized anxiety: Anxiety disorder symptomology was assessed with the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder measure (GAD-7) [55]. The sum provides an indicator of severity and a score ≥ 10 was coded as a positive screen for anxiety.

Anger: Anger negatively impacts one’s ability to recover from traumatic experiences, especially following a military deployment [5659]. Recent expressions of internally-focused anger were assessed using a measure adapted from the Interpersonal Conflict and the State/Trait Anger scales for use in military research [60]. Respondents indicated how many times in the past month (1 = not at all to 5 = very often) they had: boiled inside with anger, a hard time cooling down when angry, anger that got in the way of getting along with others, and anger that progresses instantly to aggression or rage (α = .93).

Aggression: Externally-focused aggressive behavior [61] was measured by having respondents indicate how many times in the past month (1 to 10+) they had: been angry at someone and yelled or shouted at them; been angry with someone and kicked or smashed something; slammed a door, punched a wall, etc.; threatened someone with physical violence; and gotten into a fight with someone and hit that person (α = .83).

General mental and physical health: Two single-item measures were used to assess respondents’ general mental and physical health. Respondents indicated the number of days over the past 30 days when they had poor mental or physical health.

Exposure measures.

Deployment stressors: During the mid-deployment data collection, combat- and non-combat deployment stressors were assessed to capture for the degree to which each respondent experienced a number of deployment-related environmental stressors. Combat experiences place servicemembers at particular risk for developing a range of mental and behavioral health issues [10, 16, 19, 29] as well as physical ailments [20, 62]. Combat exposures were evaluated using a 31-item measure that has been used in multiple military studies (α = .78) [10, 19, 63]; respondents were asked to indicate how many times during their current deployment they had experienced each item (e.g., Being shot at; 0 = 0 to 6 = 5+). Non-combat deployment stressors were assessed with a 25-item measure created for the purposes of this study; respondents were asked to indicate how stressful (0 = not at all to 5 = extremely) each item had been on their current deployment (α = .95). This measure was developed specifically for this project to capture living conditions during deployment. It is similar in spirit to those used for veterans’ populations but focuses more squarely on current living and socio-emotional conditions. Scores ranged from 25 to 105 (Mean = 45.39, SD = 16.67) with a distribution skewed to the lower end of the scale (skewness = .89 and kurtosis = .26). It provided good internal consistency (α= .94). See S1 Appendix for a complete list of the items.

Additional variables.

A number of factors known to impact both the onset and treatment of MH outcomes were also assessed in the post-deployment survey.

Organizational support: The degree to which respondents received positive psychological support from their unit overall was assessed with the shortened Perceived Organizational Support measure, which has been widely used in military research [6465]; respondents indicated their level of agreement with the following items: 1) My unit strongly considers my goals and values; 2) My unit really cares about my well-being; 3) My unit cares about my opinion; and 4) My unit is willing to help me when I need a special favor (0 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; α = .95).

Unit cohesion: The degree to which respondents perceived their immediate unit as functioning cohesively was assessed by asking respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the following statements: 1) The members of my unit are cooperative with each other; 2) The members of my unit know that they can depend on each other; and 3) The members of my unit stand up for each other (0 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; α = .96) [6667].

Facets of perceived leadership: Respondents’ perceptions of their immediate leadership in their unit (e.g., those directly in charge of them) were assessed by respondents indicating how often leaders did the following: 1) Tell servicemembers when they have done a good job; 2) Embarrass servicemembers in front of other servicemembers; 3) Try to look good to higher-ups by assigning extra missions or details to servicemembers; 4) Exhibit clear thinking and reasonable action under stress. Each of these items was measured from 0 = never to 5 = always) [6870].

Reintegration: General post-deployment reintegration was assessed with a shortened 11-item version of the Military to Civilian Questionnaire [71]; respondents indicated the level of difficulty they had with each item (e.g., Finding meaning or purpose in life) since returning from the deployment (0 = no difficulty to 5 = extreme difficulty; α= .95). Additionally, post-deployment family reintegration was assessed with a shortened 10-item Army Post-Deployment Reintegration Scale [72]; respondents indicated the extent to which each item (e.g., I feel closer to my family) held true for them since returning from deployment (0 = not true at all to 5 = completely true; α= .78). See supplemental information for a complete list of the items.

Demographics: Consistent with other military studies, the key variables included: gender, military rank, age, ethnicity, education level, marital or significant other status, and years of military service. As this population is comprised of reserve personnel, more civilian-centric questions were also posed, including: civilian employment status (full-time, part-time, unemployed, retired), employment type (self-employed, government employee, or private sector employee), socioeconomic status (annual household income and debt level), and college/university student status (full or part-time). No personally identifiable information was collected (e.g., birthdate).


Sample demographics

The demographics of the sample at mid-deployment are reported in Table 1. The majority of the 571 soldiers in the brigade were male (90.7%), Pacific Islander (84.6%), and Chamorro (i.e., native people of Guam; 80.80%). Ages ranged between 19 and 57 years at mid- deployment, with a mean age of 29.50. The majority (81.3%) had not deployed before so this was their first deployment.

Mental health outcomes

Table 2 provides the scores for each MH outcome of interest at the three timepoints and, where applicable, the total number and percentage of servicemembers who screened positive at each timepoint. There is a clear increase of positive screens for PTSD, depression and anxiety between pre- and mid-deployment and between mid- and post-deployment.

Multilevel modeling was used to assess the evolution of the MH outcomes over the three timepoints and test the role of combat and deployment-related stress factors, as well as gender and age. This longitudinal mixed-effect model specification includes a time variable that represents each data collection point (baseline= 0) to account for changes in the outcome variables [73]. Linear mixed effects models were estimated using the nlme package [74] in the open source statistical programming language R [75]. Each of the continuous MH outcomes was analyzed in two steps. In the first model, only the main effects were included: time, gender, age, combat experiences and deployment stressors. In the second model, all the interactions with time were added. The analysis provides an assessment of how MH evolves across time (main effect of time) as well as whether these evolutions differ significantly as a function of the other variables (interaction between time and the other variables in the model).

As reported in Table 3, the main effects model shows that time was significant for all outcomes, reflecting a worsening of PCL-17, PHQ-9, and GAD-7 over the course of the deployment cycle but improvements in internal anger and aggression over time. Table 3 also reports the Akaike Information Criterions (AIC) and Deviance Information Criterions (DIC), which, along with R2 reflect model fit. These deviance indicators show that, for each outcome, the addition of the two-way interaction terms with time improves model fit. When comparing the main effects model to the full model, it is noteworthy that only the deployment-related stressors, and not combat-related stressors, remain significant predictors of all the MH outcomes. The full model, which includes the interactions, reveals that several predictor variables interact significantly with time, as discussed below.

Table 3. Estimates for the multilevel models predicting each mental health outcome.

Although there are no main effects in relation to gender, the interaction between time and gender is significant for GAD-7 and internal anger, and marginally significant for PCL-17. These interactions signal that the temporal evolution of these MH issues differs by gender. As illustrated in Figs 13, scores on the PCL-17, GAD-7, and PHQ-9 assessments stabilize around mid-deployment levels for males, but they are all significantly higher for females than for males six months post-deployment. Table 4 shows that female respondents report worse post-deployment MH issues, even though there were no such gender differences before or during deployment. Given that these analyses control for combat and non-combat deployment stressors, the gender differences identified are independent of those factors.

Fig 1. Predicted values of PCL-17 across time: Males vs. females.

Fig 2. Predicted values of PHQ-9 across time: Males vs. females.

Fig 3. Predicted values of GAD-7 across time: Males vs. females.

Table 4. Gender differences in mental health outcomes at each time points.

The multilevel modeling results further indicate that deployment stressors, not combat exposures, are significantly and positively associated with MH outcomes. The significant time X deployment stressors interaction also reveals that PCL-17 worsens at a greater rate over time for those with higher levels of deployment stressors, as illustrated in Fig 4.

Fig 4. Predicted values of PCL-17 across time as a function of deployment stressors.

Exploratory post analysis

Given the significant gender differences in how MH symptoms evolve across the combat deployment cycle, an additional exploratory analysis was conducted to better understand the nature of the situation females face post-deployment. Focusing on the post-deployment data and comparing gender in an independent sample t-test between the two groups, females were found not to differ from their male counterparts in terms of family reintegration. Males and females did differ in their post-deployment assessment of the organization support received from the unit, with females reporting significantly lower rates of organization support (3.34 for females vs. 3.84 for males; t (461) = 3.47, p < .01), unit cohesion (3.55 for females vs. 4.00 for males; t (461) = 3.27, p < .01), and perceived unit leadership (2.95 for females vs. 3.24 for males; t (454) = 3.19, p < .01) even though there were no such gender differences at mid-deployment. These patterns are in the opposite direction of that observed in overall perceptions of general post-deployment reintegration where females reported higher levels than males (2.12 for females vs. 1.68 for males; t (461) = -2.50, p < .01). Hence, the worsening of female MH post-deployment appears to be connected to the perceived lack of support from their military unit, and not from factors related to their civilian lives.


This study reveals that the evolution of MH issues varies as a function of the type of stressor (i.e., both deployment and combat related) experienced across a deployment cycle as well as one’s individual characteristics. Unlike the bulk of prior research, the evidence in this study points to deployment stressors, and not combat-related stressors, as the major driver of the onset and continuation of MH issues. Although most of the extant literature has focused on combat-related stressors, this study’s findings suggest that more attention should be placed on everyday deployment-related stressors, which emerged as significant drivers of MH issues. Compared to combat-related stressors, non-combat stressors span a large spectrum and range from less serious factors, such as boredom, to more serious factors, such as sexual harassment [38, 76]. As to better account for the multitude of environmental stressors that servicemembers face while deployed, future research should more accurately identify, operationalize, and account for non-combat deployment-related stressors as to assess the degree to which they negatively impact health and well-being outcomes across a deployment cycle for active duty and reserve servicemembers alike.

Most notably, the findings highlight salient gender differences in how PTSD, depression and anxiety manifest post-deployment. Whereas females reported lower rates of MH issues before and during their deployment, their MH outcomes post-deployment are more severe than their male counterparts’. This finding adds to a growing body of research concerning gender-associated health outcome differences in military populations and highlights the need for additional gender-focused research [77]. To that end, an interesting avenue for future research might lie in more deeply documenting the factors, such as social support from fellow unit members, that may be lacking in the post-deployment environment for female servicemembers. Building on prior research that points to interpersonal stressors as particularly salient for females during deployment [78], this research signals that such stressors may also accentuate in the post-deployment period and female reservists’ transition back to their civilian lives. Considering that the females in this study reported higher rates of PTSD, depression and anxiety, as well as perceptions of receiving less unit and leadership support post-deployment, it is important that future research delineate what factors might underlie such perceptions and how to best palliate these cultural and organizational issues. Such findings are even more concerning when coupled with the fact that females are more likely to experience non-combat related interpersonal stressors (e.g., harassment and sexual assault) [79] which in turn leads to worse MH outcomes and negative career implications [8082]. Additionally, female servicemembers are often faced with such interpersonal stressors while in the midst of a combat deployment, which can compound the negative outcomes [83]. These realities warrant additional research to better understand and help mitigate such outcomes, especially as the US military transitions to have female servicemembers serve in combat positions traditionally reserved for males [8487].

Within such a line of research, a broader scope of inquiry is required to capture everyday realities post-deployment. It is well-documented that females face hardships and MH issues when returning to work following maternity leave. Research in this realm has shown the importance of accounting for socioeconomic status, childcare responsibilities, and household obligations [88]; and there have been calls for military researchers to better assess specific demographic, social, and environmental exposure factors [89]. Future research should increase focus to such factors when studying military reserve populations and assess the parallels between females returning from military deployments and returning to employment from parental leave. More specifically, future research should seek to understand and develop female-centric post-deployment reintegration and health promotion programs in an effort to mitigate negative MH outcomes.

This study helps narrow the gap in Guam-based academic research in general and in the military in particular. The focus on a Guam NG unit sheds light on an understudied subpopulation of the US military. In particular, this study provides insights on an isolated island nation that possesses strong and unique cultural identities and social bonds. This context highlights many of sociocultural identity facets that may affect one’s sense of meaning, purpose and belonging (e.g., being Chamorro, a member National Guard, male, American). Extending beyond this study, it would be useful to unearth aspects of the sociocultural environment that comprise risk factors, such as race-related stigma [90], as well as those that may afford protective factors, such as cultural belongingness Future research should seek to assess the interplay of these identity frames on the evolution of mental health and to guide the development of culturally relevant prevention and intervention efforts in the area of mental health [91].

Supporting information

S1 File. Deidentified minimal dataset used in the MLM analyses.



The authors express their gratitude to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Training Mission in Afghanistan and the US Central Command for supporting this research project. The authors would like to dedicate this paper to SGT Eugene M. Aguon and SPC Dwayne W. Flores, who were part of the unit under study and killed in action in Afghanistan on 16 May 2013 during the course of the research. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Government, the US Department of Defense, or the Uniformed Services University.


  1. 1. Yang S, Wynn GH, Ursano RJ. A clinician’s guide to PTSD biomarkers and their potential future use. Focus. 2018;16(2): 143–152. pmid:31975909
  2. 2. Doubler MD. The national guard and reserve: A reference handbook. Greenwood Publishing Group; 2008.
  3. 3. Fink DS, Calabrese JR, Liberzon I, Tamburrino MB, Chan P, Cohen GH, et al. Retrospective age-of-onset and projected lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders among US Army National Guard soldiers. J Affect Disorders. 2016 Sep 15;202: 171–7. pmid:27262639
  4. 4. Russell DW, Kazman JB, Benedek DM, Ursano RJ, Russell CA. Domestic civil support missions can aggravate negative mental health outcomes among national guardsmen: The moderating role of economic difficulties. J Trauma Stress. 2017 Apr;30(2): 195–9. pmid:28141895
  5. 5. Ciarleglio MM, Aslan M, Proctor SP, Concato J, Ko J, Kaiser AP, et al. Associations of stress exposures and social support with long-term mental health outcomes among US Iraq War Veterans. Behav Ther. 2018 Sep 1;49(5): 653–67. pmid:30146134
  6. 6. Hofscher R, Bennett E, Crabtree M, Russell E, Isacco A. National Guard and Reserve: An examination of differences on posttraumatic stress symptoms. Mil Behav Health. 2017 Apr 3;5(2): 157–62.
  7. 7. Russell DW, Cohen GH, Gifford R, Fullerton CS, Ursano RJ, Galea S. Mental health among a nationally representative sample of United States Military Reserve Component Personnel. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2015 Apr 1;50(4): 639–51. pmid:25421591
  8. 8. Russell DW, Benedek DM, Naifeh JA, Fullerton CS, Benevides N, Ursano RJ, et al. Social support and mental health outcomes among US Army Special Operations personnel. Mil Psychol. 2016 Oct 6;28(6): 361–75.
  9. 9. Bennett EA, Crabtree M, Schaffer ME, Britt TW. Mental health status and perceived barriers to seeking treatment in rural reserve component veterans. JRSS. 2011 Sep 1;26(3): 113.
  10. 10. Russell DW, Russell CA, Riviere LA, Thomas JL, Wilk JE, Bliese PD. Changes in alcohol use after traumatic experiences: The impact of combat on Army National Guardsmen. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014 Jun 1;139: 47–52. pmid:24685562
  11. 11. Heavey SC, Homish DL, Goodell EA, Homish GG. US reserve soldiers' combat exposure and intimate partner violence: Not more common but it is more violent. Stress and Health. 2017;33(5): 617–623. pmid:28198140
  12. 12. Hoopsick RA, Vest BM, Homish DL, Homish GG. Combat exposure, emotional and physical role limitations, and substance use among male United States Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(1): 137–147. pmid:28921407
  13. 13. Marsella AJ, White G. Cultural conceptions of mental health and therapy. 4th vol. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
  14. 14. Cook WA, Doorenbos AZ, Bridges EJ. Trends in research with US military service member participants: A population-specific review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016;3: 122–130. pmid:27822569
  15. 15. Defense Health Agency. Mental health disorder prevalence among active duty service members in the military health system, fiscal years 2005-2016. Silver Spring, MD: Deployment Health Clinical Center, Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Center. 2017.
  16. 16. Norman SB, Haller M, Hamblen JL, Southwick SM, Pietrzak RH. The burden of co-occurring alcohol use disorder and PTSD in US Military veterans: Comorbidities, functioning, and suicidality. Psychol Addict Behav. 2018 Mar;32(2): 224. pmid:29553778
  17. 17. 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 May 1;17(5): 37. pmid:25876141
  18. 18. Broekman BF, Olff M, Boer F. The genetic background to PTSD. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2007 Jan 1;31(3): 348–62. pmid:17126903
  19. 19. Hoge CW, Castro CA, Messer SC, McGurk D, Cotting DI, Koffman RL. Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. N Eng J Med. 2004 Jul 1;351(1): 13–22.
  20. 20. Hoge CW, Terhakopian A, Castro CA, Messer SC, Engel CC. Association of posttraumatic stress disorder with somatic symptoms, health care visits, and absenteeism among Iraq war veterans. Am J Psychiatry. 2007 Jan;164(1): 150–3. pmid:17202557
  21. 21. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Pub. 2013 May 22.
  22. 22. Yehuda R. Advances in understanding neuroendocrine alterations in PTSD and their therapeutic implications. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Jul 1;1071(1): 137–66.
  23. 23. Koenen KC, Saxe G, Purcell S, Smoller JW, Bartholomew D, Miller A, et al. Polymorphisms in FKBP5 are associated with peritraumatic dissociation in medically injured children. Mol Psychiatry. 2005 Aug 9;10(12): 1058. pmid:16088328
  24. 24. Koenen KC, Stellman SD, Sommer JF Jr, Stellman JM. Persisting posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and their relationship to functioning in Vietnam veterans: A 14‐year follow‐up. J Trauma Stress. 2008 Feb;21(1): 49–57. pmid:18302174
  25. 25. Odani S, Agaku IT, Graffunder CM, Tynan MA, Armour BS. Tobacco product use among military veterans—United States, 2010–2015. MMWR. 2018 Jan 12;67(1): 7. pmid:29324732
  26. 26. Olenick M, Flowers M, Diaz VJ. US veterans and their unique issues: Enhancing health care professional awareness. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6: 635. pmid:26664252
  27. 27. Breslau N, Davis GC, Peterson EL, Schultz LR. A second look at comorbidity in victims of trauma: The posttraumatic stress disorder–major depression connection. Biol Psychiatry. 2000 Nov 1;48(9): 902–909. pmid:11074228
  28. 28. McFarlane AC, Papay P. Multiple diagnoses in posttraumatic stress disorder in the victims of a natural disaster. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1992 Aug;180(8): 498–504. pmid:1500931
  29. 29. Russell DW, Whalen RJ, Riviere LA, Clarke-Walper K, Bliese PD, Keller DD, et al. Embedded behavioral health providers: An assessment with the Army National Guard. Psychol Serv. 2014 Aug;11(3): 265. pmid:24841511
  30. 30. Booth‐Kewley S, Larson GE, Highfill‐McRoy RM, Garland CF, Gaskin TA. Correlates of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in Marines back from war. J Trauma Stress. 2010 Feb;23(1): 69–77. pmid:20104587
  31. 31. Halverson RR, Bliese PD, Moore RE, Castro CA. Psychological well-being and physical health symptoms of soldiers deployed for operation uphold democracy. A summary of human dimensions research in Haiti (No. WRAIR/TR-95-0008). Washington DC: Walter Reed Army Inst of Research; 1995 May 25.
  32. 32. Morden E, Oster M, O'Brien CP, editors. Substance use disorders in the US Armed Forces. National Academies Press; 2013 Mar 21.
  33. 33. Schaller EK, Woodall KA, Lemus H, Proctor SP, Russell DW, Crum-Cianflone NF. A longitudinal comparison of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression among military service components. Mil Psychol. 2014 Mar 1;26(2): 77–87.
  34. 34. Griffith J. Decades of transition for the US reserves: changing demands on reserve identity and mental well-being. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011;23(2): 181–191. pmid:21521088
  35. 35. Kwan J, Jones M, Hull L, Wessely S, Fear N, MacManus D. Violent behavior among military reservists. Aggress Behav. 2017 May;43(3): 273–80. pmid:27775160
  36. 36. Polusny MA, Martyr MA, Erbes CR, Arbisi PA, Kramer M, Gibson E, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among National Guard/Reserve Component Service Members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. In: Martin CR, Preedy VR, Patel VB, editors. Comprehensive guide to post-traumatic stress disorders. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016 Jun. pp. 455–87.
  37. 37. Cohen GH, Fink DS, Sampson L, Galea S. Mental health among reserve component military service members and veterans. Epidemiol Rev. 2015;37(1): 7–22.
  38. 38. Mayeux R, Basham KK, Bromet EJ, Burke GL, Charney DS, Davis M, et al. Gulf War and Health. 2008;6. Available from:
  39. 39. Vogt D, Smith BN, King LA, King DW, Knight J, Vasterling JJ. Deployment risk and resilience inventory‐2 (DRRI‐2): An updated tool for assessing psychosocial risk and resilience factors among service members and veterans. J Trauma Stress. 2013 Dec;26(6): 710–7. pmid:24490250
  40. 40. Linley PA, Joseph S. Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. J Trauma Stress. 2004 Feb;17(1): 11–21. pmid:15027788
  41. 41. Crisomoto RA. Strategic Guam: Past, present, and future. Mater’s in Strategic Studies Thesis, United States Army War College. March 2013. Available from:
  42. 42. Central Intelligence Agency. The World Fact Book- Australia-Oceania: Guam. CIA. 2019. Available from:
  43. 43. Hicks J. Guam: A High Concentration of Veterans, but Rock-Bottom VA Funding. The Washington Post. 29 Oct 2014. Available from:
  44. 44. Tanji M. Chamorro warriors and godmothers meet Uncle Sam: Gender, loyalty and resistance to the us military occupation in postwar Guam. In: De Matos C, Ward R, editors. Gender, power, and military occupations: Asia Pacific and the Middle East since 1945. New York: Routledge; 2012. pp. 98–117.
  45. 45. PBS, producer and director. America by the Numbers: Island of Warriors [Episode]; 2014. Available from:
  46. 46. Rogers RF. Destiny’s landfall: A history of Guam. Honolulu: University of Hawai‛i Press; 2011.
  47. 47. Pietrzak E, Pullman S, Cotea C, Nasveld P. Effects of deployment on mental health in modern military forces: A review of longitudinal studies. J Mil Veterans Health. 2012 Aug;20(3): 24.
  48. 48. Bliese PD, Wright KM, Adler AB, Thomas JL, Hoge CW. Timing of postcombat mental health assessments. Psychol Serv. 2007 Aug;4(3): 141.
  49. 49. Thomas JL, Wilk JE, Riviere LA, McGurk D, Castro CA, Hoge CW. Prevalence of mental health problems and functional impairment among active component and National Guard soldiers 3 and 12 months following combat in Iraq. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Jun 1;67(6): 614–23. pmid:20530011
  50. 50. Wilson AL, Hoge CW, McGurk D, Thomas JL, Clark JC, Castro CA. Application of a new method for linking anonymous survey data in a population of soldiers returning from Iraq. Ann Epidemiol. 2010 Dec 1;20(12): 931–8. pmid:21074108
  51. 51. Grube JW, Morgan M, Kearney KA. Using self-generated identification codes to match questionnaires in panel studies of adolescent substance use. Addict Behav. 1989 Jan 1;14(2): 159–71. pmid:2786325
  52. 52. Weathers FW, Litz BT, Herman DS, Huska JA, Keane TM. The PTSD Checklist (PCL): Reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. In: Annual convention of the international society for traumatic stress studies, San Antonia, TX. 1993 Oct 24;462.
  53. 53. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Patient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: The PHQ primary care study. JAMA. 1999 Nov 10;282(18): 1737–44. pmid:10568646
  54. 54. Lang AJ, Laffaye C, Satz LE, Dresselhaus TR, Stein MB. Sensitivity and specificity of the PTSD checklist in detecting PTSD in female veterans in primary care. J Trauma Stress. 2003 Jun;16(3): 257–64. pmid:12816338
  55. 55. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10): 1092–7. pmid:16717171
  56. 56. Adler AB, Britt TW, Castro CA, McGurk D, Bliese PD. Effect of transition home from combat on risk‐taking and health‐related behaviors. J Trauma Stress. 2011 Aug;24(4): 381–9. pmid:21818784
  57. 57. Ehlers A, Mayou RA, Bryant B. Psychological predictors of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder after motor vehicle accidents. J Abnorm Psychol. 1998 Aug;107(3): 508. pmid:9715585
  58. 58. Forbes D, Bennett N, Biddle D, Crompton D, McHugh T, Elliott P, et al. Clinical presentations and treatment outcomes of peacekeeper veterans with PTSD: Preliminary findings. Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Nov 1;162(11): 2188–90. pmid:16263866
  59. 59. McHugh T, Forbes D, Bates G, Hopwood M, Creamer M. Anger in PTSD: Is there a need for a concept of PTSD-related posttraumatic anger?. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Mar 1;32(2): 93–104. pmid:22236575
  60. 60. Wilk JE, Bliese PD, Thomas JL, Wood MD, McGurk D, Castro CA, et al. Unethical battlefield conduct reported by soldiers serving in the Iraq war. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Apr 1;201(4): 259–65. pmid:23538969
  61. 61. Kulka RA, Schlenger WE, Fairbank JA, Hough RL, Jordan BK, Marmar CR, et al. Trauma and the Vietnam war generation: Report of findings from the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study. New York: Brunner/Mazel; 1990 Mar.
  62. 62. Boscarino JA. Diseases among men 20 years after exposure to severe stress: Implications for clinical research and medical care. Psychosom Med. 1997 Nov 1;59(6): 605–14. pmid:9407579
  63. 63. Wilk JE, Bliese PD, Kim PY, Thomas JL, McGurk D, Hoge CW. Relationship of combat experiences to alcohol misuse among US soldiers returning from the Iraq war. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Apr 1;108(1-2): 115–21. pmid:20060237
  64. 64. Anderson L, Campbell‐Sills L, Ursano RJ, Kessler RC, Sun X, Heeringa SG, et al. Prospective associations of perceived unit cohesion with postdeployment mental health outcomes. Depress Anxiety. 2019 Jan 29;36(6): 511–521. pmid:30694009
  65. 65. Kelley CL, Britt TW, Adler AB, Bliese PD. Perceived organizational support, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and stigma in soldiers returning from combat. Psychol Serv. 2014 May;11(2): 229. pmid:24364593
  66. 66. Ehrhart MG, Bliese PD, Thomas JL. Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness: Examining the incremental effect of helping behavior. Hum Perform. 2006 Apr 1;19(2): 159–73.
  67. 67. Wright KM, Cabrera OA, Bliese PD, Adler AB, Hoge CW, Castro CA. Stigma and barriers to care in soldiers postcombat. Psychol Serv. 2009 May;6(2): 108.
  68. 68. Chen G, Bliese PD. The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. J Appl Psychol. 2002 Jun;87(3): 549. pmid:12090612
  69. 69. Thomas JL, Bliese PD, Jex SM. Interpersonal Conflict and Organizational Commitment: Examining Two Levels of Supervisory Support as Multilevel Moderators1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2005 Nov;35(11): 2375–98.
  70. 70. Zinzow HM, Britt TW, Pury CL, Raymond MA, McFadden AC, Burnette CM. Barriers and facilitators of mental health treatment seeking among active-duty army personnel. Mil Psychol. 2013 Sep 30;25(5): 514–35.
  71. 71. Sayer NA, Frazier P, Orazem RJ, Murdoch M, Gravely A, Carlson KF, et al. Military to civilian questionnaire: A measure of postdeployment community reintegration difficulty among veterans using Department of Veterans Affairs medical care. J Trauma Stress. 2011 Dec;24(6): 660–70. pmid:22162082
  72. 72. Blais AR, Thompson MM, McCreary DR. The development and validation of the Army post-deployment reintegration scale. Mil Psychol. 2009 Jun 30;21(3): 365–86.
  73. 73. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage; 2002.
  74. 74. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer Verlag; 2000.
  75. 75. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2014. Available from:
  76. 76. Hosek J, Kavanagh JE, Miller LL. How deployments affect service members. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2006 Feb 7.
  77. 77. Cohen GH, Sampson LA, Fink DS, Wang J, Russell D, Gifford R, et al. Gender, position of authority, and the risk of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder among a national sample of US Reserve component personnel. Women's Health Issues. 2016 May 1;26(3): 268–77. pmid:26899583
  78. 78. Fox AB, Walker BE, Smith BN, King DW, King LA, Vogt D. Understanding how deployment experiences change over time: Comparison of female and male OEF/OIF and Gulf War veterans. Psychol Trauma. 2016 Mar;8(2): 135. pmid:25866959
  79. 79. Street AE, Vogt D, Dutra L. A new generation of women veterans: Stressors faced by women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009;29(8): 685–694. pmid:19766368
  80. 80. Kimerling R, Makin-Byrd K, Louzon S, Ignacio R, McCarthy J. Military sexual trauma and suicide mortality. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(5): 684–91.
  81. 81. Rosellini AJ, Street AE, Ursano RJ, Chiu WT, Heeringa SG, Monahan J, et al. Sexual assault victimization and mental health treatment, suicide attempts, and career outcomes among women in the US Army. Am J Public Health. 2017 May;107(5): 732–9. pmid:28323466
  82. 82. Blosnich JR, Gordon AJ, Fine MJ. Associations of sexual and gender minority status with health indicators, health risk factors, and social stressors in a national sample of young adults with military experience. Ann Epidemiol. 2015;25(9): 661–67. pmid:26184439
  83. 83. Monteith LL, Menefee DS, Forster JE, Wanner JL, Bahraini, NH. Sexual trauma and combat during deployment: Associations with suicidal ideation among OEF/OIF/ OND veterans. J Trauma Stress. 2015;28(4): 283–88. pmid:26190530
  84. 84. Robles J. Gender integration into combat arms. Army University Press. 2018 July 2. Available from:
  85. 85. Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs Command Information. AF begins testing phase for women in combat roles. U.S. Air Force. 2015 April 21. Available from:
  86. 86. Brownson C. Rejecting patriarchy for equivalence in the US Military: A response to Anthony King’s “Women warriors: Female accession to ground combat”. Armed Forces Soc. 2016 Jan;42(1): 235–42.
  87. 87. Heather D, Cazares H, Cazares PT. Women, ships, submarines, and the U.S. Navy. In: Ritchie EC, Naclerio AL, editors. Women at war. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. pp. 123.
  88. 88. Wallace M, Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, EDEN Mother–Child Cohort Study Group. Returning to work one year after childbirth: Data from the mother–child cohort EDEN. Matern Child Health J. 2013 Oct 1;17(8): 1432–40. pmid:23054452
  89. 89. Ford JD. Complex PTSD: Research directions for nosology/assessment, treatment, and public health. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2015 Dec 1;6(1): 27584.
  90. 90. Loo CM, Fairbank JA, Scurfield RM, Ruch LO, King DW, Adams LJ, et al. Measuring exposure to racism: Development and validation of a Race-Related Stressor Scale (RRSS) for Asian American Vietnam veterans. Psychol Assess. 2001 Dec;13(4): 503. pmid:11793894
  91. 91. Haslam SA, Jetten J, Postmes T, Haslam C. Abstract. Applied Psychology. 2009;58(1): 1–23.