Mental Health Service Use in Depressed Military Personnel: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION

Major depression is a leading cause of morbidity in military personnel and an important impediment to operational readiness in military organizations. Although treatment options are available, a large proportion of individuals with depression do not access mental health services. Quantifying and closing this treatment gap is a public health priority. However, the scientific literature on the major depression treatment gap in military organizations has never been systematically reviewed.

METHODS

We systematically searched the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO databases for studies measuring recent mental health service use in personnel serving in the armed forces of a Five-Eye country (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States). We excluded studies conducted with retired veterans. Because of the substantial heterogeneity in included studies, we did not pool their results. Instead, we computed median period prevalence of mental health service use.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included in the systematic review; 12 had estimated mental health service use in personnel with depression, and another 16 had estimated mental health service use in personnel with depression or another mental health disorder. The period prevalence of mental health service use in depressed military personnel ranged from 20 to 75% in 12 included studies, with a median of 48%, over 2-12 months. The other 16 studies yielded similar conclusions; they reported period prevalence of mental health service use in personnel with any mental health disorder ranging from 14 to 75%, with a median of 36%, over 1-12 months. The median was higher in studies relying on diagnostic interviews to identify depressed personnel, compared to studies relying on screening tools (60% vs. 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a large treatment gap for major depression in particular, and for mental health disorders in general, among military personnel. However, our results highlight the association between the use of measurement tools and treatment gaps: estimated treatment gaps were larger when depressed patients were identified by screening tools instead of diagnostic interviews. Researchers should be wary of overestimating the mental health treatment gap when using screening tools in future studies.