Skip to main content

Military Health System

Is Suicide a Social Phenomenon during the COVID-19 Pandemic? Differences by Birth Cohort on Suicide Among Active Component Army Soldiers, Jan.1, 2000–June 4, 2021

Image of Spc. Brittney VerBerkmoes speaks among fellow Soldiers in a group centered on finding a way for the Army to mitigate the amount of suicides that occurs among Soldiers. Spc. Brittney VerBerkmoes speaks among fellow Soldiers in a group centered on finding a way for the Army to mitigate the amount of suicides that occurs among Soldiers. The Solarium was held to help junior service members to communicate with the Army’s senior leaders about finding solutions to important issues occurring in the Army. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Elizabeth Rundell)

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Abstract

This study explored rates of death by suicide among active component U.S. Army soldiers during Jan. 1, 2000–June 4, 2021 by birth cohort including Baby Boomers (1946–1964), Generation X (1965–1980), Millennials (1981–1996), and Generation Z (1997–2012). From Jan. 1, 2008 through June 4, 2021, the most likely cluster of suicides, although not statistically significant, was identified between March 2020 and June 2021, which coincided with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Army has observed 55%–82% increases in suicide rates among Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation X compared to 1 year before the pandemic. The largest proportional increase in rates affected the members of Generation X, but the highest rates both before and after the pandemic onset affected those in Generation Z. Discussion of the findings introduces theories that have been used to explain psychological states that may predispose to suicidal behavior and posits ways in which Army leaders and organizations may be able to reduce suicide risk among soldiers. The limitations of the study and possible additional inquiries are described.

What Are the New Findings?

From 2008 through 2021, the most likely cluster of deaths by suicide was identified from March 2020 to June 2021, which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the onset of the pandemic, the Army has observed 55%–82% increases in suicide rates among Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation X compared to 1 year before the pandemic.

What Is the Impact on Readiness and Force Health Protection?

Assuming a soldier reaches the age range for being eligible for retirement based on at least 20 years of service (between 38 and 62 years), the deaths by suicide between 2000 and 2021 constitute 25,454–82,766 years of life lost to the Army. Findings from the current study suggest the need for additional inquiries to better understand the implications of the pandemic, during which restriction of movement, isolation, and physical distancing necessary to minimize COVID-19 transmission have magnified social health issues among Army soldiers.

Background

The U.S. Army suicide rate has surpassed 20 per 100,000 soldiers since 2008 and reached 30 per 100,000 soldiers in 2018.1 Although the Army suicide rate has been higher in the 17–24 age group in recent years,1 it has not always been the case.2,3 Prior to 2016, Army suicide rates were highest among those aged 25–34;2,3 rates since 2017 have been highest among those 17–24 years.1,4

Because optimal physical, mental, and behavioral health are key to ensure readiness, Army suicide prevention strategies have traditionally focused on individual-level factors (e.g., mental and behavioral health diagnoses, mandatory suicide prevention training). Studies have shown that interventions focused on such factors have been of limited effectiveness in reducing the risk of suicide rates.5 The Army has taken the community-level approach to identify factors associated with suicidal behaviors.6 While common community-level factors emerged from over 10 years of the Army's behavioral health epidemiological consultations6, recommendations accompanying each individual consultation report are not always acted upon or followed through. Suicide shares many community-level risk and protective factors with other harmful behaviors (e.g., intimate partner violence). Shifting the focus from individual harmful outcomes to community-level root causes5, such as social determinants of health7, could allow Army leaders to address suicide and other harmful behaviors using an integrated approach and potentially have a greater impact.

There is a dearth of information on how birth cohorts impact suicidal behavior in the Army, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study summarized data on the demographic and military characteristics of active component Army soldiers who died by suicide from Jan. 1, 2000­ through June 4, 2021. Additionally, a commonly applied method to detect temporal suicide clusters, the scan statistic, was applied to these data in an attempt to identify differences by birth cohort.

Methods

Study Population, Time Frame, and Data Sources

This study was a population-based retrospective analysis of active component Army soldiers who died by suicide from Jan. 1, 2000 through June 4, 2021, as documented by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (AFMES). Monthly population counts of all active component Army soldiers were obtained from the Defense Medical Surveillance System. Demographic data (date of death, date of birth, age, pay grade, rank, sex, racial group, and marital status) for soldiers who died by suicide came from the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS). Soldiers who died by suicide but did not have a date of birth and age at death in DCIPS were excluded from the study (n=6). A total of 2,388 Army soldiers were included in the final analysis.

Descriptive Statistics and Cluster Analyses

The following 4 successive birth cohorts were included in this analysis: Baby Boomers (1946–1964), Generation X (1965–1980), Millennials (1981–1996), and Generation Z (1997–2012). Demographic characteristics were stratified by birth cohort and differences were assessed using chi-square tests. Crude suicide rates were calculated by birth cohort before (March 1, 2019–Feb. 29, 2020) and during (March 1, 2020–June 4, 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic. These analyses were performed using R, version 4.0.2 (2020, R Core Team).

In general, suicide clusters can be identified by location (spatial) and/or by time (temporal). This study identified temporal-only suicide clusters using a discrete Poisson temporal model available in SaTScan, version 9.6 (2018, M. Kulldorff). The most likely suicide cluster was identified using temporal scan statistics and was calculated for the periods from 2000 through 2021 (with all available data) and 2008 through 2021 (2008 was the first year the adjusted Army suicide rate surpassed the civilian rate8). The discrete scan statistics applied scanning windows over the study period to test whether the number of suicides occurred closer together in time than would normally be expected through random processes. Given the availability of the suicide event date, the time precision for suicide counts was set to day. Suicide counts and population sizes were aggregated by month. The minimum and maximum temporal cluster sizes were set to 1 month and 15 months, respectively. A sensitivity analysis was carried out using the same minimum temporal cluster size and a maximum temporal cluster size extending to half of the study period (software default). A minimum of 2 suicides were required in a cluster. To account for suicide trend, the analysis also incorporated an automatic log-linear adjustment. Statistical significance was determined using a p value generated by a sequential Monte Carlo procedure (software default maximum replications=999).

Results

From Jan. 1, 2000 through June 4, 2021, 2,388 soldiers died by suicide; the majority were male (94%), White (77%), married (56%), junior enlisted (E1–E4; 54%), and Millennials (63%) (data not shown). There were no statistically significant differences in birth cohorts by sex or racial group. However, Generation Z Army members included significantly higher proportions of soldiers who were single and junior enlisted than the 3 other cohorts (data not shown).

During 2000–2021, a statistically significant cluster of suicides was identified from April 2008 to April 2009, resulting in an Army suicide rate that surpassed the rate for civilians for the first time.9 From Jan. 1, 2008 through June 4, 2021, the most likely cluster of suicides, although not statistically significant, was identified from March 2020 through June 2021, which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure). The sensitivity analysis revealed the same result. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Army has observed 55%–82% increases in suicide rates among Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation X compared to 1 year before the pandemic (Table). While Generation Z had the highest absolute increase in the rate of death by suicide (from 39.5 to 60.8 per 100,000) when compared to the year of the pandemic, Generation X soldiers had the highest relative increase in rates during the COVID-19 period rising from 17.4 to 30.8 per 100,000. This represented an 82% increase in the relative rate of death by suicide among Generation X soldiers. Comparatively, there was only a 56% increase in the suicide death rate for Generation Z soldiers (Table).

Editorial Comment

The current study demonstrated pronounced increases in rates of death by suicide from 1 year before the COVID-19 pandemic to the period from 1 March 2020 to 4 June 2021 among soldiers across 3 of the 4 birth cohorts examined. When comparing the 2 time periods, members of Generation Z had the highest absolute increase in suicide rates and Generation X members had the highest relative increase in rates. Assuming a soldier reaches the age range of being eligible for retirement based on at least 20 years of service (between 38 and 62 years), these deaths from 2000 through 2021 constitute 25,454–82,766 years of life lost to the Army. Of note, this is likely an overestimate given that not all soldiers pursue a military career to retirement.

The reasons behind suicidal behavior at various stages in life and potential birth cohort differences may affect soldiers' receptiveness to prevention and intervention efforts. Findings from this study suggest that Generation Z soldiers are at a greater risk for suicide (from 39.5 to 60.8 per 100,000) and Generation X soldiers may have been more impacted by the pandemic (82% increase in suicide rate during pandemic). While Generation Z soldiers born in the digital age could value extrinsic factors (e.g., image, fame) more than intrinsic factors (e.g., self-acceptance, community)10, Generation X soldiers could face deepened despair. A study among Generation Xers in the civilian population demonstrated increased levels of suicidal ideation, depressive symptoms, marijuana use, and heavy drinking—compared to previous birth cohorts of the same age.11 This suggests tailoring suicide prevention strategies by birth cohort and having a leader who could provide purpose could have greater impact.

Joiner's Interpersonal Theory of Suicide describes thwarted belongingness, perceived burdensomeness, and acquired capabilities as potential triggers for suicide12 and can be used to explain soldier death by suicide. This theory of suicidal behavior posits that the desire to commit suicide arises as a result of an individual holding 2 specific psychological states in their mind simultaneously for a period of time: "perceived burdensomeness" and "low belongingness".12 Perceived burdensomeness is a feeling that one's existence is a burden to friends, family, society or other social group. A low sense of belongingness corresponds to a sense of alienation or a lack of integration with family, friends, or other social groups.

Thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness may be compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of social connectedness due to the pandemic may have intensified feelings of thwarted belongingness, as loneliness has been identified as a public health epidemic in younger populations13 and a risk factor for suicidal ideation.14 With regard to perceived burdensomeness, soldiers place value on their ability to support their unit and accomplish the Army mission. Meaning salience (understanding of one's meaning in life) is important for maintaining and promoting behavioral and social health in times of crisis.15 Trachik et al. found that having leaders who remind soldiers of the purpose of military service amidst stressful experiences can indirectly lower the odds of soldiers having suicidal ideation through unit cohesion that counters thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness.16 Moreover, a sense of meaning and purpose is a protective factor under extreme stress17 and having that purpose articulated from a military leader may enhance resilience and reduce risk for suicidal ideation.16,18

With acquired capability, soldiers may have an intensified degree of fearlessness and develop an insensitivity to the pain associated with death by suicide. Previous research demonstrates that service members are more likely to have a greater capability for suicide19, which may be due to exposure to combat violence, death, and pain.20,21 From 2001 through 2021, the most prevalent method of death by suicide was gunshot wound as documented by the Department of Defense Suicide Event Report22,23, DCIPS24,25, and AFMES.24,25 Dempsey et al. found that storing a loaded firearm at home quadrupled the risk of death by suicide among soldiers.26 Hoffmann et al. also found that impulsivity was the strongest predictor of suicide attempt in a sample of 38,507 soldiers.27 Minimizing soldiers' access to firearms/lethal means is an evidenced-based practice in suicide prevention28 and mechanisms to promote lethal means safety29—especially at a time of crisis (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic)—are crucial.

The U. S. Army Public Health Center and other U.S. Government organizations have routinely identified social determinants of health impacting preventable deaths and soldier and family readiness.6 These factors include conditions of military housing30-33, food quality and availability32, quantity and quality of gyms and other recreational areas32, spouse employment opportunities32-34, economic stress and financial literacy32, education and training31,32, family/community support services31,32, racial and ethnic discrimination35,36, health care availability and accessibility14,31,32,37, behavioral health stigma14,31,32, and social isolation.14,32 Focusing on these root causes brings an upstream approach to suicide prevention, where programs, practice, and policies could best synergize and have shown evidence in reducing suicide risk.38

This study has several limitations. Because demographic data came from a single source, there was no additional validation of this information. The study period was based on calendar year and covered various years in service for each birth cohort. Because all 4 birth cohorts of soldiers could not be followed equally for 20 years, the differences by marital status and rank could be an artifact of Generation Z soldiers being in the Army for a shorter period of time. The scan statistics accounted for suicide trend but did not adjust for covariates. The suicide rates from this study were based on preliminary data and were not adjusted for age or sex. Further analyses with adjusted scan statistics and adjusted suicides rates should be considered upon receipt of the annual data in 2021. The study's strengths include over 20 calendar years of suicide records and synchronization of the AFMES data from the latest years with the Army Resilience Directorate to ensure accuracy.

Findings from the current study suggest the need for additional inquiries to better understand the implications of the pandemic, during which restriction of movement, isolation, and physical distancing necessary to minimize COVID-19 transmission have magnified social health issues among Army soldiers.

Author affiliations: Division of Behavioral and Social Health Outcomes Practice, Directorate of Clinical Public Health and Epidemiology, U.S. Army Public Health Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (Dr. Schaughency and Dr. Watkins); Behavioral Health Division, Office of the Surgeon General, Washington, D.C. (LTC Preston).

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge support from the following individuals: Mr. John Wills, Ms. Anita Spiess, Dr. Charles Hoge, Dr. Joseph Abraham, and Dr. John Ambrose.

Human research protections: The Public Health Review Board of the U.S. Army Public Health Center approved this study as Public Health Practice (#21-955) under the Behavioral Health Mission Public Health Surveillance and Monitoring Activities BSHOP Umbrella Project Plan (#16-500).

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army Medical Command, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

References

  1. Brooks RD, Toussaint M, Corrigan E, Anke K. Surveillance of Suicidal Behavior: U.S. Army Active and Reserve Component Soldiers, Jan.-Dec. 2018. Public Health Report No. S.0049809.1-18. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2020.
  2. Nweke N, Spiess A, Corrigan E, et al. Surveillance of Suicidal Behavior: Jan. through Dec. 2015. Public Health Report No. S.0008057-15. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2016.
  3. Brooks RD, Corrigan E, Toussaint M, Pecko J. Surveillance of Suicidal Behavior: Jan. through Dec. 2017. Public Health Report No. S.0049809.1. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2018.
  4. Brooks RD, Toussaint M. Surveillance of Suicidal Behavior: U.S. Army Active and Reserve Component Soldiers, Jan.–Dec. 2018. Public Health Report No. S.0049809.1-18. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2020.
  5. Prevention Institute. Back to Our Roots: Catalyzing Community Action for Mental Health and Wellbeing. Prevention Institute; 2017.
  6. U.S. Army Public Health Center. A Decade of BH EPICONs Lessons Learned. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2021.
  7. Social Determinants of Health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Updated May 6 2021. Accessed 21 May 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants/index.htm
  8. Bachynski KE, Canham-Chervak M, Black SA, Dada EO, Millikan AM, Jones BH. Mental health risk factors for suicides in the US Army, 2007–Inj Prev. 2012;18(6),405–412.
  9. Watkins EY, Spiess A, Abdul-Rahman I, et al. Adjusting suicide rates in a military population: Methods to determine the appropriate standard population, Am J Public Health. 2018;108(6),769–776.
  10. Griffith J, Bryan CJ. Suicides in the U.S. Military: Birth Cohort Vulnerability and the All-Volunteer Force. Armed Forces & Society. 2016;42(3):483–500.
  11. Gaydosh L, Hummer RA, Hargrove TW, et al. The Depths of Despair Among US Adults Entering Midlife. Am JPub Health, 2019;109:774–780.
  12. Joiner TE. Why people die by suicide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press; 2005.
  13. Demarinis S. Loneliness at epidemic levels in America. Explore (NY). 2020;16(5):278–279.
  14. Abdur-Rahman I, Anke K, Beymer M, et al. Assessment of Behavioral and Social Health Outcomes in South Korea, April 2019–March 2020. Technical Report No S.0066218.3-19. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2020.
  15. Klussman K, Nichols AL, Langer J. Mental health in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal examination of the ameliorating effect of meaning salience. Curr Psychol. 2021; Mar 12:1–8.
  16. Trachik B, Tucker RP, Ganulin ML, et al. Leader provided purpose: Military leadership behavior and its association with suicidal ideation. Psychiatry Res. 2020;285:112722.
  17. Nock MK, Deming CA, Fullerton CS, et al. Suicide among soldiers: a review of psychosocial risk and protective factors. Psychiatry. 2013;76(2):97–125.
  18. Trachik B, Oakey-Frost N, Ganulin ML, et al. Military suicide prevention: The importance of leadership behaviors as an upstream suicide prevention target. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2021;51(2):316–324.
  19. Assavedo BL, Green BA, Anestis MD. Military personnel compared to multiple suicide attempters: Interpersonal theory of suicide constructs. Death Stud. 2018;42(2):123–129.
  20. Bryan CJ, Cukrowicz KC, West CL, Morrow CE. Combat experience and the acquired capability for suicide. J Clin Psychol. 2010;66(10):1044–1056.
  21. Bryan CJ, Cukrowicz KC. Associations between types of combat violence and the acquired capability for suicide. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2011;41(2):126–136.
  22. Defense Health Agency. DoDSER Department of Defense Suicide Event Report: Calendar Year 2018 Annual Report. Defense Health Agency; 2019.
  23. Department of Defense. Department of Defense Semi-Annual Report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives on Suicide Among Armed Forces Members, March 2021. Department of Defense; 2021.
  24. Department of Defense. Annual Suicide Report: Calendar Year 2019. Department of Defense; 2020.
  25. U.S. Army Public Health Center. Methods of Suicide among U.S. Army Soldiers during CY2001–2021 YTD. Memorandum. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2021.
  26. Dempsey CL, Benedek DM, Zuromski KL, et al. Association of firearm ownership, use, accessibility, and storage practices with suicide risk among US Army soldiers. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(6):e195383–e195383.
  27. Hoffmann SN, Taylor CT, Campbell-Sills L, et al. Association between neurocognitive functioning and suicide attempts in U.S. Army Soldiers. J Psychiatr Res. 2020 Nov 7;S0022-3956(20)31071-2.
  28. Wasserman D, Iosue M, Wuestefeld A, Carli V. Adaptation of evidence-based suicide prevention strategies during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. World Psychiatry, 2020;19(3):294–306.
  29. Stanley IH, Hom MA, Rogers ML, Anestis MD, Joiner TE. Discussing firearm ownership and access as part of suicide risk assessment and prevention: "means safety" versus "means restriction." Arch Suicide Res. 2017;21(2):237–253.
  30. Johnson L, Jungels AM, McLeod VR. Assessment of Behavioral and Occupational Health within the 25th Infantry Division (25ID), Schofield Barracks, HI, Sept. 21-25, 2015. Technical Report No 14-BB0304-0041704-15. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2017.
  31. Anke K, Forys-Donahue K, Hall S, et al. Assessment of Behavioral and Psychosocial Health Outcomes within the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), July 2018. Technical Report No S.0058999.3-18. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2019.
  32. Anke K, Beymer B, Forys-Donahue K, et al. Assessment of Behavioral and Social Health Outcomes at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, March–Sept. 2019. Technical Report No S.0065762.3-19. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2019.
  33. Blue Star Families. 2020 Military Family Lifestyle Survey Comprehensive Report: Executive Summary. Blue Star Families; 2021.
  34. Blue Star Families. 2020 Military Family Lifestyle Survey Comprehensive Report: Recommendation. Blue Star Families; 2021.
  35. Daniel S, Claros Y, Namrow N, et al. Workplace and Equal Opportunity Survey of Active Duty Members: Executive Report. Technical Report OPA-2018-023. Alexandria, VA: Office of People Analytics; 2019. 
  36. Beymer M, Cevis K, Charleston K, et al. People First Task Force Solarium, Assessment of Racism, Extremism, Sexual Harassment and Assault, and Suicide Behavior within Army Culture, West Point, New York, March 2021. Technical Report No S.0079049.3. U.S. Army Public Health Center; 2021.
  37. Department of Defense. Evaluation of Access to Mental Health Care in the Department of Defense (DODIG-2020-112). Department of Defense; 2020.
  38. Stone DM, Holland KM, Bartholow B, Crosby AE, Davis S, Wilkins N. Preventing Suicide: A Technical Package of Policies, Programs, and Practices. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2017.

FIGURE. Suicides, as reported by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System,a by month, active component Army soldiers, 1 Jan. 2008–4 June 2021b

You also may be interested in...

Surveillance Trends for SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Pathogens Among U.S. Military Health System Beneficiaries, 27 September 2020–2 October 2021.

Article
7/1/2022
Staff Sgt. Misty Poitra and Senior Airman Chris Cornette, 119th Medical Group, collect throat swabs during voluntary COVID-19 rapid drive-thru testing for members of the community while North Dakota Army National Guard Soldiers gather test-subject data in the parking lot of the FargoDome in Fargo, N.D., May 3, 2020. The guardsmen partnered with the N.D. Department of Health and other civilian agencies in the mass-testing efforts of community volunteers. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Chief Master Sgt. David H. Lipp)

Respiratory pathogens, such as influenza and adenovirus, have been the main focus of the Department of Defense Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) since 1976.1. However, DoDGRPSP also began focusing on SARS-CoV-2 when COVID-19 was declared a pandemic illness in early March 2020.2. Following this declaration, the DOD quickly adapted and organized its respiratory surveillance program, housed at the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM), in response to this emergent virus.

Recommended Content:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
<< < 1 2 3 4 5  ... > >> 
Showing results 16 - 30 Page 2 of 14
Refine your search
Last Updated: October 26, 2022
Follow us on Instagram Follow us on LinkedIn Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on YouTube Sign up on GovDelivery