ArticleBMJ military health2025
Evaluation of the NHS England 'Op COURAGE' High Intensity Service for military veterans with significant mental health problems.
Article in BMJ military health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptation and Acceptability of a Low-Intensity Cognitive Behavioral Therapy App to Support Low Mood and Worry Management in Female Forces Veterans: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- 'One Is Too Many' preventing self-harm and suicide in military veterans: a quantitative evaluation.BMJ military health · 2025Article
- Observational study of the pre-service vulnerabilities, in-service exposures and post-service antecedents of suicide in veterans of the UK Armed Forces, 2007-2018.BMJ public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn November 2020, The NHS for England launched a pilot High Intensity Service (HIS) programme for treating military veterans complex mental health problems. Seven regional grants were awarded to manage the HIS, including NHS Solent, in South East England. This paper details an evaluation of the HIS, which was conducted from February 2021 to August 2022.
methodsThis mixed-methods study gained quantitative data from a specifically designed questionnaire that included a number of validated psychometric questionnaires. These were completed by either HIS staff or beneficiaries at entry and exit from the HIS, and qualitative data were gained from semi-structured interviews with the HIS staff.
resultsData were sourced from 45 pre-questionnaires, 25 post programme questionnaires and 11 interviews. This evaluation identified reductions in situational stressors, symptoms and reported illnesses for veterans in crisis. There were reductions in depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder following programme exit. Staff reported that there was no notable changes in stress levels which appeared to remain high at programme exit. Staff interviews highlighted the importance of simultaneously understanding the social and psychological needs of veterans in mental health crisis. The benefits of integrating veteran staff members into military veteran health services were identified, demonstrating improvements in education around military culture in civilian services.
conclusionsThe importance of collaboration between clinical and veteran staff members in veteran health services was noted, demonstrating the positive impact social care provision has on veteran's overall health and well-being. Veteran engagement with the service was advocated as a result of veterans accessing the service feeling understood. This first independent evaluation of the HIS provides a positive reflection, and adds to the limited empirical evidence exploring veteran engagement in health services.
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.