Nash, W. P., Vasterling, J., Ewing-Cobbs, L., Horn, S., Gaskin, T., Golden, J., … Baker, D. G. (2010). Consensus recommendations for common data elements for operational stress research and surveillance: Report of a federal interagency working group. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 91(11), 1673–1683.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.035

Deployment
Mental health

Air Force
Army
Coast Guard
Marine Corps
Multiple branches
Navy

Veteran

Veteran

Adulthood (18 yrs & older)
Young adulthood (18 - 29 yrs)
Thirties (30 - 39 yrs)
Middle age (40 - 64 yrs)

Quantitative Study

Nash, William P., Vasterling, Jennifer, Ewing-Cobbs, Linda, Horn, Sarah, Gaskin, Thomas, Golden, John, Riley, William T., Bowles, Stephen V., Favret, James, Lester, Patricia, Koffman, Robert, Farnsworth, Laura C., Baker, Dewleen G.

Empirical studies and surveillance projects increasingly assess and address potentially adverse psychological health outcomes from the stress of military operations, but no standards yet exist for common concept definitions, variable categories, and measures. This article reports the consensus recommendations of the federal interagency Operational Stress Working Group for common data elements to be used in future operational stress research and surveillance with the goal of improving comparability across studies. Operational stress encompasses more than just combat; it occurs everywhere service members and their families live and work. Posttraumatic stress is not the only adverse mental or behavioral health outcome of importance. The Operational Stress Working Group contends that a primary goal of operational stress research and surveillance is to promote prevention of adverse mental and behavioral outcomes, especially by recognizing the preclinical and subclinical states of distress and dysfunction that portend a risk for failure of role performance or future mental disorders. Recommendations for data elements are divided into 3 tiers: core, supplemental, and emerging, including variable domains and specific measures for assessing operational stressor exposures, stress outcomes, moderating factors, and mediating processes. Attention is drawn to the emerging construct of stress injury as a generic term for subclinical operational stress, and to emerging data elements addressing biological, psychological, and spiritual mediators of risk. Methodologies are needed for identifying preclinical and subclinical states of distress or dysfunction that are markers of risk for failure of role performance and future clinical mental disorders, so that targeted prevention interventions can be developed and evaluated.

Elsevier Science

Article

Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, Arlington, Veterans Administration, VA, WPN
Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, Arlington, Veterans Administration, VA, SH
Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, Arlington, Veterans Administration, VA, JG
Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health, Veterans Administration San Diego Healthcare System and University of California, San Diego, CA, WPN
Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health, Veterans Administration San Diego Healthcare System and University of California, San Diego, CA, DGB
VA Boston Healthcare System and National Center for PTSD, Boston, MA, JV
Dan L. Duncan Neurodevelopmental Clinic, Children's Learning Institute and University of Texas, Houston, TX, LEC
Combat and Operational Stress Control, Headquarters, Marine Corps, Quantico, VA, TG
National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, WTR
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, SVB
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC, JF
UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles, CA, PL
U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Washington, DC, RK
San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, LCF