Murray Weeks1, Bryan G Garber2, Mark A Zamorski3. 1. Research and Analysis Section, Directorate of Mental Health, Canadian Forces Health Services Group, Ottawa, ON. 2. Research and Analysis Section, Directorate of Mental Health, Canadian Forces Health Services Group, Ottawa, ON bryan.garber@forces.gc.ca. 3. Research and Analysis Section, Directorate of Mental Health, Canadian Forces Health Services Group, Ottawa, ON Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The initial goal was to validate the use of a self-report measure of disability in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The main goal was to document the extent of disability in personnel with and without mental disorders. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2013 Canadian Forces Mental Health Survey; the sample included 6700 Regular Forces personnel. Disability was measured with the 12-item version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-2); established cut points were used to demarcate severe, moderate, minimal, and no disability. The following recent (past-year) and remote (lifetime but not past-year) disorders were assessed with diagnostic interviews: posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive episode, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and alcohol use disorder. RESULTS: The WHODAS-2 showed good internal consistency (α = 0.89) and a 1-factor structure. Most personnel had no disability (59.2%) or minimal disability (30.8%). However, an important minority had moderate or severe disability (8.4% and 1.6%, respectively). Individuals with recent disorders reported greater disability than those without lifetime disorders, although many had minimal or no disability (41.2% and 24.7%, respectively). Disability increased with the number of recent disorders. Relative to those without lifetime disorders, individuals with remote disorders showed slightly greater disability, but most had no disabilty (57.1%) or minimal disability (35.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The 12-item WHODAS-2 is a valid measure of disability in the CAF. Mental disorders may be important drivers of disability in this population, although limited residual disability is seen in individuals with remote disorders.
OBJECTIVES: The initial goal was to validate the use of a self-report measure of disability in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The main goal was to document the extent of disability in personnel with and without mental disorders. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2013 Canadian Forces Mental Health Survey; the sample included 6700 Regular Forces personnel. Disability was measured with the 12-item version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-2); established cut points were used to demarcate severe, moderate, minimal, and no disability. The following recent (past-year) and remote (lifetime but not past-year) disorders were assessed with diagnostic interviews: posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive episode, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and alcohol use disorder. RESULTS: The WHODAS-2 showed good internal consistency (α = 0.89) and a 1-factor structure. Most personnel had no disability (59.2%) or minimal disability (30.8%). However, an important minority had moderate or severe disability (8.4% and 1.6%, respectively). Individuals with recent disorders reported greater disability than those without lifetime disorders, although many had minimal or no disability (41.2% and 24.7%, respectively). Disability increased with the number of recent disorders. Relative to those without lifetime disorders, individuals with remote disorders showed slightly greater disability, but most had no disabilty (57.1%) or minimal disability (35.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The 12-item WHODAS-2 is a valid measure of disability in the CAF. Mental disorders may be important drivers of disability in this population, although limited residual disability is seen in individuals with remote disorders.
Authors: T Bedirhan Ustün; Somnath Chatterji; Nenad Kostanjsek; Jürgen Rehm; Cille Kennedy; Joanne Epping-Jordan; Shekhar Saxena; Michael von Korff; Charles Pull Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Giuseppe Magistrale; Valerio Pisani; Ornella Argento; Chiara C Incerti; Marco Bozzali; Diego Cadavid; Carlo Caltagirone; Rossella Medori; John DeLuca; Ugo Nocentini Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Steven Heeringa; Matthew D Lakoma; Maria Petukhova; Agnes E Rupp; Michael Schoenbaum; Philip S Wang; Alan M Zaslavsky Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2008-05-07 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Anthony M Battaglia; Alina Protopopescu; Jenna E Boyd; Chantelle Lloyd; Rakesh Jetly; Charlene O'Connor; Heather K Hood; Anthony Nazarov; Shawn G Rhind; Ruth A Lanius; Margaret C McKinnon Journal: Eur J Psychotraumatol Date: 2019-01-17
Authors: Michel A Paul; Ryan J Love; Rakesh Jetly; J Donald Richardson; Ruth A Lanius; James C Miller; Michael MacDonald; Shawn G Rhind Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Tracie O Afifi; Shay-Lee Bolton; Natalie Mota; Ruth Ann Marrie; Murray B Stein; Murray W Enns; Renée El-Gabalawy; Charles N Bernstein; Corey Mackenzie; Linda VanTil; Mary Beth MacLean; Jian Li Wang; Scott Patten; Gordon J G Asmundson; Jitender Sareen Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Murray W Enns; Natalie Mota; Tracie O Afifi; Shay-Lee Bolton; J Don Richardson; Scott B Patten; Jitender Sareen Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Natalie Mota; Shay-Lee Bolton; Murray W Enns; Tracie O Afifi; Renée El-Gabalawy; Jordana L Sommer; Robert H Pietrzak; Murray B Stein; Gordon J G Asmundson; Jitender Sareen Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 4.356