Cited by 10Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchOccupational Health and PerformanceMigration, Health and Trauma

An exploratory domain analysis of deployment risks and protective features and their association to mental health, cognitive functioning and job performance in military personnel

Crane, M. F., Hazel, G., Kunzelmann, A., Kho, M., Gucciardi, D. F., Rigotti, T., Kalisch, R., Karin, E.·2024·Anxiety, Stress, & Coping

Abstract

Background: Meta-analyses of military deployment involve the exploration of focused associations between predictors and peri and post-deployment outcomes.Objective: We aimed to provide a large-scale and high-level perspective of deployment-related predictors across eight peri and post-deployment outcomes.Design: Articles reporting effect sizes for associations between deployment-related features and indices of peri and post-deployment outcomes were selected. Three-hundred and fourteen studies (N = 2,045,067) and 1,893 relevant effects were retained. Deployment features were categorized into themes, mapped across outcomes, and integrated into a big-data visualization.Methods: Studies of military personnel with deployment experience were included. Extracted studies investigated eight possible outcomes reflecting functioning (e.g., post-traumatic stress, burnout). To allow comparability, effects were transformed into a Fisher’s Z. Moderation analyses investigating methodological features were performed.Results: The strongest correlates across outcomes were emotional (e.g., guilt/shame: Z = 0.59 to 1.21) and cognitive processes (e.g., negative appraisals: Z = −0.54 to 0.26), adequate sleep on deployment (Z = −0.28 to – 0.61), motivation (Z = −0.33 to – 0.71), and use of various coping strategies/recovery strategies (Z = −0.25 to – 0.59).Conclusions: Findings pointed to interventions that target coping and recovery strategies, and the monitoring of emotional states and cognitive processes post-deployment that may indicate early risk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10615806.2023.2228707

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crane, M. F., Hazel, G., Kunzelmann, A., Kho, M., Gucciardi, D. F., Rigotti, T., Kalisch, R., & Karin, E.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research (DE)
Corresponding author
Crane, M. F.
Venue
Anxiety, Stress, & Coping
Published
2023-06-28
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
16-28
ISSN
  • 1061-5806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-2205
OpenAlex
W4382395002
Cited by
10
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Anxiety Stress & Coping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
Funders
The Human Performance Research Network (ID9040)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
Keywords
military deployment, protective factors, mental health, cognitive function, employee performance, post-traumatic stress, burnout, guilt and shame, negative appraisals, motivation, coping strategies, recovery strategies, emotional state, military personnel
MeSH terms
Work Performance, Cognition, Humans, Mental Health, Military Personnel, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review