Skip to main content

Military Health System

Brief Report: Prevalence of Screening Positive for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Among Service Members Following Combat-Related Injury

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Background

The post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in the most U.S. military casualties since Vietnam.1 Asymmetric warfare dominated the battlefield, commonly in the form of improvised explosive devices and other blast weaponry, which placed infantry and combat support personnel at risk of injury.2 As casualty numbers increased during these conflicts, so too did the survivability rate relative to previous wars, most notably due to advances in personal protective equipment and field medical care.3 This led to a shift in resources towards long-term rehabilitation of wounded service members to ameliorate physical and mental health sequelae.2,4

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is frequently reported among military personnel, particularly those with combat-related injury.5,6 Koren et al.5 hypothesized multiple etiologies for the relationship between combat-related injury and PTSD, including increased levels of perceived threat to life and peritraumatic dissociation (i.e., feeling emotionally numb or separated from a traumatic event) among injured relative to non-injured personnel. An increased incidence of PTSD is associated with physical problems and chronic health conditions after combat-related injury.7,8 Moreover, assessment of PTSD following combat-related injury is essential for planning appropriate treatment protocols and improving long-term well-being.4,9

This report describes the prevalence of screening positive for PTSD and the association with injury severity and time since injury among U.S. military personnel injured during combat operations.

Methods

Data were collected from the Wounded Warrior Recovery Project (WWRP), a longitudinal examination of patient-reported outcomes among service members injured on deployment in post-9/11 conflicts.10 Participants in the WWRP are identified from the Expeditionary Medical Encounter Database (EMED), a deployment health repository maintained by the Naval Health Research Center that includes clinical records of service members injured during overseas contingency operations since 2001. Records are collected throughout the continuum of care (i.e., from point of injury through rehabilitation).11 Individuals who sustained an injury during combat operations after 1 September 2001 are eligible for the WWRP and approached via postal mail and email to provide informed consent to complete biannual assessments for 15 years. Recruitment for the WWRP began in November 2012 and is ongoing.

The present study utilized cross-sectional data for 3,847 WWRP participants collected between September 2018 and April 2020. WWRP measures and procedures were updated in late 2018 to remain consistent with current standards of measurement. Specifically, the PTSD screening instrument was updated to the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5).12 The PCL-5 shows good psychometric properties and has been used with military samples.13,14 Scores on the PCL-5 were summed to create a total symptom severity score. A standard cutoff of 33 indicated a positive screen for PTSD. Injury dates, Injury Severity Scores (ISS), and demographics for this study were obtained from the EMED. The ISS is a composite measure of overall injury severity that accounts for multiple injuries to different body regions.15 Prevalence of screening positive for PTSD was calculated and stratified by ISS (mild [ISS 1–3], moderate [ISS 4–8], or serious/severe [ISS 9+]) and time between injury and WWRP assessment in quartiles (0.4–7.3, 7.4–10.7, 10.8–13.0, or 13.1–17.8 years). Chi-square tests assessed differences by PTSD screening status. An alpha level of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed in SAS/STAT software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

The study population consisted mostly of young (<30 years old), non-Hispanic White, and male service members in the Army with mild ISSs (Table). Missing data were observed for sex (n = 4), race/ethnicity group (n = 325), and rank (n = 21). Approximately half completed a WWRP assessment more than 10.8 years after injury, and 38.7% screened positive for PTSD. Service members who screened positive for PTSD were more likely to be non-White (p <.001), non-Army (p <.001), and lower- to midlevel-enlisted (E1–E6; p <.001) with mild or moderate ISSs (p =.001).

Overall, the proportions of service members who screened positive for PTSD increased by time since injury quartile (Figure); 35.9% of participants who completed an assessment 0.4–7.3 years after injury screened positive for PTSD, compared with 41.4% who completed the assessment 13.1–17.8 years after injury. Participants with serious/severe injuries had the lowest prevalence of screening positive for PTSD in all time since injury quartiles (30.8–38.0%), while those with moderate injuries had the highest prevalence in the final 2 quartiles (44.5%).

Editorial Comment

Approximately 39% of WWRP participants screened positive for PTSD, which is higher than the 28% identified in a previous study using the same instrument among military personnel with high combat exposure.14 Another study among Marines and Soldiers returning from deployment identified 12–13% PTSD positive using a 4-item PTSD screening instrument.16 In the present study, all service members had at least 1 potentially traumatic event (i.e., combat-related injury), which could explain the higher prevalence of participants who screened positive for PTSD relative to other studies.

The finding of increasing prevalence by time since injury suggests that PTSD may develop or persist several years after combat-related injury, and underscores the need for continual assessment. The higher prevalence of screening positive for PTSD in participants with mild or moderate combat-related injuries suggests that PTSD symptoms in these individuals may not have been as promptly or readily identified and treated as in those with serious/severe injuries. Further, service members with serious/severe injuries likely received more extensive care for physical ailments and may have been regularly assessed for mental health symptoms leading to earlier identification, treatment, and resolution. Other aspects of serious/severe combat-related injuries, such as medications received during treatment in-theater, could also explain lower PTSD prevalence in this group.17

The results of this study highlight the importance of screening for PTSD after combat-related injury even after long periods of time. Both the Post-Deployment Health Assessment and Periodic Health Assessment should continue to be used to identify and refer individuals at risk for PTSD. Given that service members may be averse to reporting mental health symptoms due to non-anonymity of these assessments,18 programs aimed at reducing the stigma associated with mental health care in the military should be prioritized.19 In addition, medical providers who treat combat-related injuries should routinely screen service members for mental health concerns, as individuals presenting for physical health complaints may be simultaneously experiencing psychological symptoms.20

There are some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. This analysis examined time since injury in mutually exclusive groups, rather than repeated measures within individuals, and thus trajectory of PTSD over time could not be elucidated. Similarly, the WWRP does not collect information related to history of PTSD prior to injury. Further, the specific role of injury on the development of PTSD cannot be clarified without a detailed accounting of other factors (e.g., physical health, comorbidities, and life stressors) following combat-related injury.

In conclusion, service members and veterans with combat-related injuries are at risk of screening positive for PTSD even more than a decade after injury. This warrants future research to explore the role of injury severity and factors associated with resiliency, persistence, and recovery. Resources should be prioritized for early intervention and mitigation in this population during active service and post-military discharge.

Author Affiliations: Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA (Dr. MacGregor, Ms. Perez, Dr. McCabe, Ms. Dougherty, Dr. Jurick, and Mr. Galarneau); Axiom Resource Management Inc., San Diego, CA (Dr. MacGregor); Leidos, Inc., San Diego, CA (Ms. Perez, Dr. McCabe, Ms. Dougherty, Dr. Jurick)

Disclaimer: The authors are military service members or employees of the U.S. Government. This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17, U.S.C. §105 provides that copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the U.S. Government. Title 17, U.S.C. §101 defines a U.S. Government work as work prepared by a military service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person's official duties. This report was supported by the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery under work unit no. 60808. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the U.S. Government. The study protocol was approved by the Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects. Research data were derived from an approved Naval Health Research Center Institutional Review Board protocol, number NHRC.2009.0014.

References

1. DeBruyne NF, Leland A; Congressional Research Service. American war and military operations casualties: lists and statistics. Accessed 1 June 2021. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

2. Greer N, Sayer N, Kramer M, Koeller E, Velasquez T. Prevalence and epidemiology of combat blast injuries from the military cohort 2001–2014. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs; 2016.

3. Cannon JW, Holena DN, Geng Z, et al. Comprehensive analysis of combat casualty outcomes in US service members from the beginning of World War II to the end of Operation Enduring Freedom. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020;89(Suppl 2):S8–S15.

4. Sayer NA, Cifu DX, McNamee S, et al. Rehabilitation needs of combat-injured service members admitted to the VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers: the role of PM&R in the care of wounded warriors. PM R. 2009;1(1):23–28.

5. Koren D, Norman D, Cohen A, Berman J, Klein EM. Increased PTSD risk with combat-related injury: a matched comparison study of injured and uninjured soldiers experiencing the same combat events. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(2):276–282.

6. Walker LE, Watrous J, Poltavskiy E, et al. Longitudinal mental health outcomes of combat-injured service members. Brain Behav. 2021;11(5):e02088.

7. Grieger TA, Cozza SJ, Ursano RJ, et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in battle-injured soldiers. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(10):1777–1783.

8. Watrous JR, McCabe CT, Jones G, et al. Low back pain, mental health symptoms, and quality of life among injured service members. Health Psychol. 2020;39(7):549–557.

9. Woodruff SI, Galarneau MR, McCabe CT, Sack DI, Clouser MC. Health-related quality of life among US military personnel injured in combat: findings from the Wounded Warrior Recovery Project. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1393–1402.

10. Watrous JR, Dougherty AL, McCabe CT, Sack DI, Galarneau MR. The Wounded Warrior Recovery Project: a longitudinal examination of patient-reported outcomes among deployment-injured military personnel. Mil Med. 2019;184(3–4):84–89.

11. Galarneau MR, Hancock WC, Konoske P, et al. The Navy-Marine Corps Combat Trauma Registry. Mil Med. 2006;171(8):691–697.

12. Weathers FW, Litz BT, Keane TM, Palmieri PA, Marx BP, Schnurr PP. The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) – Standard [Measurement instrument]. National Center for PTSD Web site. Accessed 1 June 2021. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/documents/PCL5_Standard_form.PDF

13. Blevins CA, Weathers FW, Davis MT, Witte TK, Domino JL. The posttraumatic stress disorder checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): development and initial psychometric evaluation. J Trauma Stress. 2015;28(6):489–498.

14. Hoge CW, Riviere LA, Wilk JE, Herrell RK, Weathers FW. The prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in US combat soldiers: a head-to-head comparison of DSM-5 versus DSM-IV-TR symptom criteria with the PTSD checklist. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1(4):269–277.

15. Baker SP, O'Neill B, Haddon W Jr, Long WB. The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma. 1974;14:187–96.

16. Mustillo SA, Kysar-Moon A, Douglas SR, et al. Overview of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and alcohol misuse among active duty service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, self-report and diagnosis. Mil Med. 2015;180(4):419–27.

17. Holbrook TL, Galarneau MR, Dye JL, Quinn K, Dougherty AL. Morphine use after combat injury in Iraq and post-traumatic stress disorder. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(2):110–117.

18. Warner CH, Appenzeller GN, Grieger T, et al. Importance of anonymity to encourage honest reporting in mental health screening after combat deployment. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(10):1065–1071.

19. Ben-Zeev D, Corrigan PW, Britt TW, Langford L. Stigma of mental illness and service use in the military. J Ment Health. 2012;21(3):264–273.

20. MacGregor AJ, Zouris JM, Watrous JR, et al. Multimorbidity and quality of life after blast-related injury among US military personnel: a cluster analysis of retrospective data. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):578.

FIGURE. Prevalence of screening positive for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)a by Injury Severity Score (ISS) and time since injury, Wounded Warrior Recovery Project participants, September 2018–April 2020

TABLE. Demographic, military, and injury characteristics of Wounded Warrior Recovery Project participants, by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening outcome,a September 2018–April 2020

You also may be interested in...

MSMR Vol. 29 No. 07 - July 2022

Report
7/1/2022

A monthly publication of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. This issue of the peer-reviewed journal contains the following articles: Surveillance trends for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens among U.S. Military Health System Beneficiaries, Sept. 27, 2020 – Oct. 2,2021; Establishment of SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance within the MHS during March 1 – Dec. 31 2020; Suicide behavior among heterosexual, lesbian/gay, and bisexual active component service members in the U.S. Armed Forces; Brief report: Phase I results using the Virtual Pooled Registry Cancer Linkage system (VPR-CLS) for military cancer surveillance.

Recommended Content:

Health Readiness & Combat Support | Public Health | Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Brief Report: Phase I Results Using the Virtual Pooled Registry Cancer Linkage System (VPR-CLS) for Military Cancer Surveillance

Article
7/1/2022
A patient at Naval Hospital Pensacola prepares to have a low-dose computed tomography test done to screen for lung cancer. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women. Early detection can lower the risk of dying from this disease. (U.S. Navy photo by Jason Bortz)

The Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division, as part of its surveillance mission, periodically conducts studies of cancer incidence among U.S. military service members. However, service members are likely lost to follow-up from the Department of Defense cancer registry and Military Health System data sets after leaving service and during periods of time not on active duty.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Deployed Active and Reserve Component Service Members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Deployed Active and Reserve Component Service Members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

As in previous years, among service members deployed during 2021, injury/poisoning, musculoskeletal diseases and signs/symptoms accounted for more than half of the total health care burden during deployment. Compared to garrison disease burden, deployed service members had relatively higher proportions of encounters for respiratory infections, skin diseases, and infectious and parasitic diseases. The recent marked increase in the percentage of total medical encounters attributable to the ICD diagnostic category "other" (23.0% in 2017 to 44.4% in 2021) is likely due to increases in diagnostic testing and immunization associated with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Non-service Member Beneficiaries of the Military Health System, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Non-service Member Beneficiaries of the Military Health System, 2021

In 2021, mental health disorders accounted for the largest proportions of the morbidity and health care burdens that affected the pediatric and younger adult beneficiary age groups. Among adults aged 45–64 and those aged 65 or older, musculoskeletal diseases accounted for the most morbidity and health care burdens. As in previous years, this report documents a substantial majority of non-service member beneficiaries received care for current illness and injury from the Military Health System as outsourced services at non-military medical facilities.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, reserve component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, reserve component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Hospitalizations, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Hospitalizations, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

The hospitalization rate in 2021 was 48.0 per 1,000 person-years (p-yrs), the second lowest rate of the most recent 10 years. For hospitalizations limited to military facilities, the rate in 2021 was the lowest for the entire period. As in prior years, the majority (71.2%) of hospitalizations were associated with diagnoses in the categories of mental health disorders, pregnancy-related conditions, injury/poisoning, and digestive system disorders.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

In 2021, as in prior years, the medical conditions associated with the most medical encounters, the largest number of affected service members, and the greatest number of hospital days were in the major categories of injuries, musculoskeletal disorders, and mental health disorders. Despite the pandemic, COVID-19 accounted for less than 2% of total medical encounters and bed days in active component service members.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Medical Evacuations out of the U.S. Central and U.S. Africa Commands, Active and Reserve Components, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Medical Evacuations out of the U.S. Central and U.S. Africa Commands, Active and Reserve Components, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

The proportions of evacuations out of USCENTCOM that were due to battle injuries declined substantially in 2021. For USCENTCOM, evacuations for mental health disorders were the most common, followed by non-battle injury and poisoning, and signs, symptoms, and ill-defined conditions. For USAFRICOM, evacuations for non-battle injury and poisoning were most common, followed by disorders of the digestive system and mental health disorders.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Ambulatory Visits, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Ambulatory Visits, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

In 2021, the overall numbers and rates of active component service member ambulatory care visits were the highest of any of the last 10 years. Most categories of illness and injury showed modest increases in numbers and rates. The proportions of ambulatory care visits that were accomplished via telehealth encounters fell to under 15% in 2021, compared to 19% in 2020.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, recruit trainees, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, recruit trainees, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

The Association Between Two Bogus Items, Demographics, and Military Characteristics in a 2019 Cross-sectional Survey of U.S. Army Soldiers

Article
5/1/2022
NIANTIC, CT, UNITED STATES 06.16.2022 U.S. Army Staff Sgt. John Young, an information technology specialist assigned to Joint Forces Headquarters, Connecticut Army National Guard, works on a computer at Camp Nett, Niantic, Connecticut, June 16, 2022. Young provided threat intelligence to cyber analysts that were part of his "Blue Team" during Cyber Yankee, a cyber training exercise meant to simulate a real world environment to train mission essential tasks for cyber professionals. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Matthew Lucibello)

Data from surveys may be used to make public health decisions at both the installation and the Department of the Army level. This study demonstrates that a vast majority of soldiers were likely sufficiently engaged and answered both bogus items correctly. Future surveys should continue to investigate careless responding to ensure data quality in military populations.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance Snapshot: Tick-borne Encephalitis in Military Health System Beneficiaries, 2012–2021

Article
5/1/2022
iStock—The castor bean tick (Ixoedes ricinus). Credit: Erik Karits

Tick-borne Encephalitis in Military Health System Beneficiaries, 2012–2021. Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) is a viral infection of the central nervous system that is transmitted by the bite of infected ticks, mostly found in wooded habitats in parts of Europe and Asia

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Evaluation of ICD-10-CM-based Case Definitions of Ambulatory Encounters for COVID-19 Among Department of Defense Health Care Beneficiaries

Article
5/1/2022
SEATTLE, WA, UNITED STATES 04.05.2020 U.S. Army Maj. Neil Alcaria is screened at the Seattle Event Center in Wash., April 5. Soldiers from Fort Carson, Colo., and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. have established an Army field hospital center at the center in support of the Department of Defense COVID-19 response. U.S. Northern Command, through U.S. Army North, is providing military support to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help communities in need. (U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Rachel Thicklin)

This is the first evaluation of ICD-10-CM-based cased definitions for COVID-19 surveillance among DOD health care beneficiaries. The 3 case definitions ranged from highly specific to a lower specificity, but improved balance between sensitivity and specificity.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Update: Sexually Transmitted Infections, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013–2021

Article
5/1/2022
This illustration depicts a 3D computer-generated image of a number of drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae bacteria. CDC/James Archer

This report summarizes incidence rates of the 5 most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among active component service members of the U.S. Armed Forces during 2013–2021. In general, compared to their respective counterparts, younger service members, non-Hispanic Black service members, those who were single and other/unknown marital status, and enlisted service members had higher incidence rates of STIs.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Exertional Heat Illness at Fort Benning, GA: Unique Insights from the Army Heat Center

Article
4/1/2022
Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Ryan Adams is being used as an example victim for cooling a heat casualty at the bi-annual hot weather standard operating procedure training aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, N.C., Aug. 24. Adams is demonstrating the "burrito" method used to cool a heat related injury victim. Photo by Pfc. Joshua Grant.

Exertional heat illness (hereafter referred to as heat illness) spans a spectrum from relatively mild conditions such as heat cramps and heat exhaustion, to more serious and potentially life-threatening conditions such as heat injury and exertional heat stroke (hereafter heat stroke).

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report
<< < 1 2 3 4 5  ... > >> 
Showing results 1 - 15 Page 1 of 13
Refine your search
Last Updated: October 29, 2021
Follow us on Instagram Follow us on LinkedIn Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on YouTube Sign up on GovDelivery