| Abstrakt: |
Background : Soldiers are resilient to just war events, such as killing enemy combatants and life-threatening experiences, but these same soldiers appear to struggle with unjust war events, such as killing a noncombatant or being unable to help civilian women and children in need. This study is the first to examine how just and unjust war experiences are associated with clinical health service outcomes. Methods : Two samples of soldiers in different stages of readjustment from deployment were drawn from a longitudinal, survey-based study of a US Army brigade. Measures included items related to combat events, mental health utilization, perceived mental health need, PTSD, depression, and functional impairment. Results : After controlling for other kinds of combat events, just war events (i.e., life-threatening events and killing enemy combatants) predicted outcomes in soldiers who are less than three months post-deployment, but only predicted 2 of 26 outcomes in soldiers one year post deployment. In contrast, unjust war events were found to be robust predictors of short-term and long-term outcomes related to mental health need and utilization, even after controlling for exposure to other combat events. Conclusions : The results extend previous longitudinal research that suggests that exposure to unjust war events carry a heavier long-term mental health burden than other types of events. Additionally, Soldiers exposed to unjust war events had an unmet need for care one year post deployment that was not directly tied to PTSD or depression. The results question the emphasis on life-threat within mental health pathogenesis models. |
