"Defence Department Invests in Mental Health", ran the headline in The Australian on Monday. Reporter Sean Parnell went on to explain that "hundreds of millions of dollars" will be spent on a massive 'upgrade' in both facilities and training.
Taking care of the mental health of ADF personnel and veterans is not just important; it is a duty. We owe it to the men and women who protect this country to help them deal with PTSD and other lasting effects of their service.
However, The Australian article left readers with a mistaken impression on two important points: the scale of the problem, and the best way to address it.
Parnell cites a recent study from the European Journal of Psychotraumatology showing that "22 per cent of personnel would have met the criteria for a mental disorder in the previous 12 months, the most common being anxiety disorders (14.8%)". For alcohol disorders, the figure was 5.2%.
These figures, far from indicating an emergency, are nearly identical to the figures for the Australian population at large, which are 20%, 14.4%, and 5.1%, respectively.
Nor do these figures relate to serious mental illness attributable to combat or war zone experience. "ADF members who had been on operational deployment were not at an increased risk of developing an anxiety, affective, or alcohol disorder compared to those who had never deployed" (emphasis added), according to the study Parnell cites. PTSD is a serious issue, but it was not the focus of this particular mental health study.
Secondly, there is the question of treatment. Parnell mentions that the ADF is 'reconsidering' its decision not to implement annual mental health screenings, as a result of 'experts' having "warned thousands of personnel were being left unchecked for depression, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts".
But experts are far from unanimous in their view of annual mental health screenings, and many-including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-are not convinced the benefits outweigh the potential for harm.
Mental health screenings can have serious negative side effects. For example, by making a person worry whether they are feeling the 'correct' amount of sadness or stress, it may be possible to induce the very symptoms the screening is designed to help treat.
These screening questionnaires also turn up many false positives, which can lead to people being singled out for further testing when there is nothing the matter with them. Fear of subjecting individuals to this sort of stress and stigma is one reason that U.S. policymakers decided against annual mental health screenings for another at-risk population, teenagers.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs already pays for treatment of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and substance abuse, regardless of whether the conditions are the result of service. Before extending mental health services further, the ADF and DVA should make sure that these extensions will truly be of benefit.
Helen Andrews is a Policy Analyst at the Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Clarity Is crucial when discussing ADF and mental health
Clarity Is crucial when discussing ADF and mental health
Taking care of the mental health of ADF personnel and veterans is not just important; it is a duty. We owe it to the men and women who protect this country to help them deal with PTSD and other lasting effects of their service.
However, The Australian article left readers with a mistaken impression on two important points: the scale of the problem, and the best way to address it.
Parnell cites a recent study from the European Journal of Psychotraumatology showing that "22 per cent of personnel would have met the criteria for a mental disorder in the previous 12 months, the most common being anxiety disorders (14.8%)". For alcohol disorders, the figure was 5.2%.
These figures, far from indicating an emergency, are nearly identical to the figures for the Australian population at large, which are 20%, 14.4%, and 5.1%, respectively.
Nor do these figures relate to serious mental illness attributable to combat or war zone experience. "ADF members who had been on operational deployment were not at an increased risk of developing an anxiety, affective, or alcohol disorder compared to those who had never deployed" (emphasis added), according to the study Parnell cites. PTSD is a serious issue, but it was not the focus of this particular mental health study.
Secondly, there is the question of treatment. Parnell mentions that the ADF is 'reconsidering' its decision not to implement annual mental health screenings, as a result of 'experts' having "warned thousands of personnel were being left unchecked for depression, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts".
But experts are far from unanimous in their view of annual mental health screenings, and many-including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-are not convinced the benefits outweigh the potential for harm.
Mental health screenings can have serious negative side effects. For example, by making a person worry whether they are feeling the 'correct' amount of sadness or stress, it may be possible to induce the very symptoms the screening is designed to help treat.
These screening questionnaires also turn up many false positives, which can lead to people being singled out for further testing when there is nothing the matter with them. Fear of subjecting individuals to this sort of stress and stigma is one reason that U.S. policymakers decided against annual mental health screenings for another at-risk population, teenagers.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs already pays for treatment of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and substance abuse, regardless of whether the conditions are the result of service. Before extending mental health services further, the ADF and DVA should make sure that these extensions will truly be of benefit.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: