ArticleBMC women's health2019
Fit for fight - self-reported health in military women: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Injury rates in female and male military personnel: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2022Pooled it
- Military service and alcohol use: a systematic narrative review.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2022Pooled it
- High Physical Exposure During Female Recruits' Basic Military Training in Sweden-A Descriptive Study.Military medicine · 2024Article
- Insomnia: Sex differences and age of onset in active duty Army soldiers.Sleep health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubstantial research has found that women assess their health as poor relative to men, but the reasons for this are not fully understood. Military women are characterised by good health and the ability to work in an archetypically male culture. Thus, studies on the gender pattern of self-reported health in military personnel could generate hypotheses for future research on the possible associations between gender and health. However, such studies are rare and limited to a few countries. The aim of this study was to examine self-reported physical and mental health in Norwegian military women.
methodsWe compared responses on self-reported health of 1068 active duty military women in Norway to those of active duty military men (n = 8100). Further, we compared the military women to civilian women working in the Norwegian Armed Forces (n = 1081). Participants were stratified into three age groups: 20-29; 30-39; and 40-60 years. We used Pearson Chi-square tests, Students t-tests and regression models to assess differences between the groups.
resultsThe military women in our study reported physical illness and injuries equal to those of military men, but more military women used pain relieving and psychotropic drugs. More military women aged 20-29 and 30-39 years reported mental health issues than military men of the same age. In the age group 30-39 years, twice as many military women assessed their health as poor compared to military men. In the age group 40-60 years, more military women than men reported musculoskeletal pain. Military women used less smokeless tobacco than military men, but there were few differences in alcohol consumption and smoking. Military women appeared to be more physically healthy than civilian women, but we found few differences in mental health between these two groups.
conclusionMost military women reported physical symptoms equal to those of military men, but there were differences between the genders in mental health and drug use. More favourable health compared to civilian women was most evident in the youngest age group and did not apply to mental health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.