Sarah B Campbell1,2,3, Kristen E Gray4,5, Katherine D Hoerster4,6,7, John C Fortney4,7, Tracy L Simpson6,7,8. 1. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System, Research and Development Service, 1660 S Columbia Way, S-152, Seattle, WA, 98108, USA. Sarah.Campbell6@va.gov. 2. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System, Mental Health Service, 1660 South Columbian Way, S-116, Seattle, WA, 98108, USA. Sarah.Campbell6@va.gov. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. Sarah.Campbell6@va.gov. 4. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System, Research and Development Service, 1660 S Columbia Way, S-152, Seattle, WA, 98108, USA. 5. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 357660, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. 6. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System, Mental Health Service, 1660 South Columbian Way, S-116, Seattle, WA, 98108, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. 8. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System, Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education, 1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA, 98108, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Social support is an important correlate of health behaviors and outcomes. Studies suggest that veterans have lower social support than civilians, but interpretation is hindered by methodological limitations. Furthermore, little is known about how sex influences veteran-civilian differences. Therefore, we examined veteran-civilian differences in several dimensions of social support and whether differences varied by sex. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions-III, a nationally representative sample of 34,331 respondents (male veterans = 2569; female veterans = 356). We examined veteran-civilian differences in functional and structural social support using linear regression and variation by sex with interactions. We adjusted for socio-demographics, childhood experiences, and physical and mental health. RESULTS: Compared to civilians, veterans had lower social network diversity scores (difference [diff] = - 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.23, - 0.03). Among women but not men, veterans had smaller social network size (diff = - 2.27, 95% CI - 3.81, - 0.73) than civilians, attributable to differences in religious groups, volunteers, and coworkers. Among men, veterans had lower social network diversity scores than civilians (diff = - 0.13, 95% CI - 0.23, - 0.03); while among women, the difference was similar but did not reach statistical significance (diff = - 0.13, 95% CI - 0.23, 0.09). There was limited evidence of functional social support differences. CONCLUSION: After accounting for factors that influence military entry and social support, veterans reported significantly lower structural social support, which may be attributable to reintegration challenges and geographic mobility. Findings suggest that veterans could benefit from programs to enhance structural social support and improve health outcomes, with female veterans potentially in greatest need.
PURPOSE: Social support is an important correlate of health behaviors and outcomes. Studies suggest that veterans have lower social support than civilians, but interpretation is hindered by methodological limitations. Furthermore, little is known about how sex influences veteran-civilian differences. Therefore, we examined veteran-civilian differences in several dimensions of social support and whether differences varied by sex. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions-III, a nationally representative sample of 34,331 respondents (male veterans = 2569; female veterans = 356). We examined veteran-civilian differences in functional and structural social support using linear regression and variation by sex with interactions. We adjusted for socio-demographics, childhood experiences, and physical and mental health. RESULTS: Compared to civilians, veterans had lower social network diversity scores (difference [diff] = - 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.23, - 0.03). Among women but not men, veterans had smaller social network size (diff = - 2.27, 95% CI - 3.81, - 0.73) than civilians, attributable to differences in religious groups, volunteers, and coworkers. Among men, veterans had lower social network diversity scores than civilians (diff = - 0.13, 95% CI - 0.23, - 0.03); while among women, the difference was similar but did not reach statistical significance (diff = - 0.13, 95% CI - 0.23, 0.09). There was limited evidence of functional social support differences. CONCLUSION: After accounting for factors that influence military entry and social support, veterans reported significantly lower structural social support, which may be attributable to reintegration challenges and geographic mobility. Findings suggest that veterans could benefit from programs to enhance structural social support and improve health outcomes, with female veterans potentially in greatest need.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gender differences; Social support; Veterans
Authors: Susan M Frayne; Victoria A Parker; Cindy L Christiansen; Susan Loveland; Margaret R Seaver; Lewis E Kazis; Katherine M Skinner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Susan V Eisen; Mark R Schultz; Lisa N Mueller; Curt Degenhart; Jack A Clark; Sandra G Resnick; Cindy L Christiansen; Moe Armstrong; Kathryn A Bottonari; Robert A Rosenheck; Dolly Sadow Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Erin L Merz; Scott C Roesch; Vanessa L Malcarne; Frank J Penedo; Maria M Llabre; Orit B Weitzman; Elena L Navas-Nacher; Krista M Perreira; Franklyn Gonzalez; Liliana A Ponguta; Timothy P Johnson; Linda C Gallo Journal: Psychol Assess Date: 2013-12-09
Authors: Marko Elovainio; Christian Hakulinen; Laura Pulkki-Råback; Marianna Virtanen; Kim Josefsson; Markus Jokela; Jussi Vahtera; Mika Kivimäki Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2017-05-04
Authors: Rosemarie Kobau; Carla Bann; Megan Lewis; Matthew M Zack; Angela M Boardman; Renee Boyd; Kim C Lim; Tommy Holder; Anastacia Kl Hoff; Cecily Luncheon; William Thompson; Willi Horner-Johnson; Richard E Lucas Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2013-09-24
Authors: Dawne Vogt; Shelby Borowski; Shira Maguen; John R Blosnich; Claire A Hoffmire; Paul A Bernhard; Katherine M Iverson; Aaron Schneiderman Journal: SSM Popul Health Date: 2022-08-11
Authors: Kristen E Gray; Katherine D Hoerster; Stephanie A Spohr; Jessica Y Breland; Susan D Raffa Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 2.830