Expert Opinion on Managing Suicide Risk in Deployed Settings

Q2 Social Sciences Military Behavioral Health Pub Date : 2021-09-14 DOI:10.1080/21635781.2021.1973624
A. A. Mandel, Barbara Stanley, Kaitlin Dent, S. Jager-Hyman, Marjan Ghahramanlou-Holloway, Gregory K Brown
{"title":"Expert Opinion on Managing Suicide Risk in Deployed Settings","authors":"A. A. Mandel, Barbara Stanley, Kaitlin Dent, S. Jager-Hyman, Marjan Ghahramanlou-Holloway, Gregory K Brown","doi":"10.1080/21635781.2021.1973624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study aimed to: (1) determine the perceived effectiveness of buddy watch, weapon removal, and medical evacuations (MEDEVAC) for managing suicide-related events during deployment, (2) evaluate the involvement of leaders, behavioral health providers (BHPs), and chaplains in implementing these strategies, and (3) develop recommendations based on feedback from key stakeholders. A total of 74 Army support staff (80% male, 61% aged 30–44) who had encountered another service member that died by suicide, attempted suicide, or thought about suicide during deployment participated in an anonymous, online survey. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare responses between leaders, BHPs, and chaplains. Overall, survey participants supported the use of buddy watch (79%) and MEDEVAC (94%) as effective strategies for managing suicide risk during deployment, while support for weapon removal was mixed (leaders: 50%, BHPs: 92%, chaplains: 88%; Fisher exact test = 10.43, p = .01). Leaders and BHPs were endorsed as important personnel involved in making decisions regarding the use of buddy watch (78%, 77%, respectively), weapon removal (84%, 69%, respectively), and MEDEVAC (73%, 84%, respectively). It is recommended that buddy watch, weapon removal, and MEDEVAC be used in a deployed setting when determined by each service member’s unique set of risk factors.","PeriodicalId":37012,"journal":{"name":"Military Behavioral Health","volume":"10 1","pages":"145 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Military Behavioral Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2021.1973624","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This study aimed to: (1) determine the perceived effectiveness of buddy watch, weapon removal, and medical evacuations (MEDEVAC) for managing suicide-related events during deployment, (2) evaluate the involvement of leaders, behavioral health providers (BHPs), and chaplains in implementing these strategies, and (3) develop recommendations based on feedback from key stakeholders. A total of 74 Army support staff (80% male, 61% aged 30–44) who had encountered another service member that died by suicide, attempted suicide, or thought about suicide during deployment participated in an anonymous, online survey. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare responses between leaders, BHPs, and chaplains. Overall, survey participants supported the use of buddy watch (79%) and MEDEVAC (94%) as effective strategies for managing suicide risk during deployment, while support for weapon removal was mixed (leaders: 50%, BHPs: 92%, chaplains: 88%; Fisher exact test = 10.43, p = .01). Leaders and BHPs were endorsed as important personnel involved in making decisions regarding the use of buddy watch (78%, 77%, respectively), weapon removal (84%, 69%, respectively), and MEDEVAC (73%, 84%, respectively). It is recommended that buddy watch, weapon removal, and MEDEVAC be used in a deployed setting when determined by each service member’s unique set of risk factors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
管理部署环境中的自杀风险的专家意见
摘要本研究旨在:(1)确定伙伴监视、武器移除和医疗后送(MEDEVAC)在部署期间管理自杀相关事件的感知有效性,(2)评估领导者、行为健康提供者(BHP)和牧师在实施这些策略中的参与程度,以及(3)根据关键利益相关者的反馈制定建议。共有74名陆军支援人员(80%为男性,61%为30-44岁)参加了一项匿名在线调查,他们在部署期间遇到了另一名自杀、自杀未遂或想过自杀的服役人员。费舍尔的精确测试被用来比较领导者、BHP和牧师之间的反应。总体而言,调查参与者支持使用伙伴观察(79%)和医疗后送(94%)作为部署期间管理自杀风险的有效策略,而对移除武器的支持则参差不齐(领导者:50%,BHP:92%,牧师:88%;Fisher精确测试 = 10.43,p=0.01)。领导者和BHP被认可为参与决策的重要人员,涉及使用伙伴监视(分别为78%、77%)、武器移除(分别为84%、69%)和医疗后送(分别为73%、84%)。当由每个服役人员的独特风险因素决定时,建议在部署环境中使用伙伴监视、武器移除和医疗后送。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Military Behavioral Health
Military Behavioral Health Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊最新文献
Adjusting to a Partners’ Changed Appearance Following Military Combat-Related Appearance-Altering Injuries: The Challenges of Looking “Different” and How Life Continues Desired Employment and Local Social Support: The Strongest Predictors for Wellbeing Outcomes Amongst the Partners of Australian Military Members Implementation of a Supervisor-Led Resilience Training Extension in the Royal Military College Resilient Coping and the Psychometric Properties of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) Among Healthy Young Men at Military Call-up Importance of Military Identity in Understanding the Relationship Between Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Adverse Family Functioning for Post-9/11 Veterans
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1