Rocklein Kemplin Kate, Paun Olimpia, Godbee Dan C, Brandon Jonathan W
J Spec Oper Med. 2019 Summer;19(2):57-66. doi: 10.55460/BQES-AM8H.
Due to alarming rates of suicide in Special Operations Forces (SOF) and associated effects of traumatic stress in military populations writ large, resilience initiatives thought to influence Servicemembers' mitigation of traumatic stress and thus lower suicide risks have been implemented throughout the services. Since combat operations commenced in multiple theaters of war nearly two decades ago, resilience in conventional military populations became a topic of keen interest throughout departments of defense worldwide as well. Despite researchers' consistent assertions that SOF are highly resilient and at low risk for suicide, granular analysis of pertinent research and escalating suicide in SOF reveals no empirical basis for those beliefs.
We report findings from an integrative review of resilience research in SOF and larger military populations to contextualize and augment understanding of the phenomenon.
Throughout the literature, conceptual and operational definitions of resilience varied based on country, context, investigators, and military populations studied. We identified critical gaps in resilience knowledge in the military, specifically: Resilience has not been studied in SOF; resilience is not concretely established to reduce suicide risk or proven to improve mental health outcomes; resilience differs when applied as a psychological construct; resilience research is based on specific assumptions of what composes resilience, depending on methods of measurement; resilience studies in this population lack rigor; research methodologies and conflicting interests invite potential bias.
This integrative review highlights emergent issues and repetitive themes throughout military resilience research: resilience program inefficacy, potential investigator bias, perpetuated assumptions, and failure to capture and appropriately analyze germane data. Because of overall inconsistency in military resilience research, studies have limited external validity, and cannot be applied beyond sampled populations. Resilience cannot be responsibly offered as a solution to mitigating posttraumatic stress disorder nor suicide without detailed study of both in SOF.
由于特种作战部队（SOF）惊人的自杀率以及更广泛的军事群体中创伤应激的相关影响，各军种已实施了旨在影响军人减轻创伤应激从而降低自杀风险的复原力计划。自近二十年前在多个战区展开作战行动以来，常规军事群体的复原力也成为全球各国防部密切关注的话题。尽管研究人员一直断言特种作战部队具有很强的复原力且自杀风险较低，但对相关研究的细致分析以及特种作战部队中不断上升的自杀率表明，这些观点缺乏实证依据。
我们报告了对特种作战部队和更广泛军事群体中复原力研究的综合回顾结果，以将这一现象置于背景中并加深理解。
在整个文献中，复原力的概念和操作定义因国家、背景、研究人员以及所研究的军事群体而异。我们发现军事领域复原力知识存在关键空白，具体如下：尚未对特种作战部队的复原力进行研究；尚未明确确立复原力可降低自杀风险或被证明能改善心理健康结果；作为一种心理结构应用时，复原力存在差异；复原力研究基于对构成复原力的具体假设，这取决于测量方法；该群体中的复原力研究缺乏严谨性；研究方法和相互冲突的利益引发了潜在偏差。
这项综合回顾突出了军事复原力研究中出现的问题和反复出现的主题：复原力计划无效、潜在的研究人员偏差、持续存在的假设以及未能获取和适当分析相关数据。由于军事复原力研究总体上缺乏一致性，研究的外部效度有限，且无法应用于抽样群体之外。在未对特种作战部队的创伤后应激障碍和自杀问题进行详细研究的情况下，不能将复原力作为减轻这些问题的可靠解决方案。
