SynthesisBMC medicine2026
Mental health and wellbeing interventions for uniformed service personnel: a mixed methods systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUniformed service personnel are routinely exposed to occupational trauma in their roles which contribute to elevated rates of mental health conditions. A wide range of mental health and wellbeing interventions may help uniformed service personnel manage their psychological responses to challenging incidents at work. Previous reviews of those interventions have focused on single groups of professionals or intervention types, limiting cross-sector insights. This review uses a mixed methods approach to synthesise evidence associated with mental health and wellbeing interventions across uniformed services.
methodsThe protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024605877). A mixed methods systematic review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) convergent segregated approach. Searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO (Dec 2024). Screening and quality appraisal (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) were performed independently by two reviewers. Due to heterogeneity, findings were narratively synthesised. Quantitative and qualitative results were integrated following the JBI approach.
resultsEighty-six primary studies from 22 countries were included, covering a range of professions and intervention types. Synthesis of quantitative data from 82 studies showed that mindfulness-based training, resilience coaching, cognitive behavioural therapies and supported lifestyle activities demonstrated reduced symptoms of PTSD, anxiety and depression. However, interventions such as Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) and peer support yielded mixed results. Qualitative data from 9 studies were grouped into 5 categories: enhanced emotional insight, improved interpersonal relationships, perceived effectiveness, barriers to engagement and delivery challenges. Participants valued interventions that fostered self-awareness and support but cited stigma, guilt and logistical constraints as significant barriers. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings revealed alignment in outcomes for several interventions, while highlighting evidence gaps, such as the lack of qualitative data for many interventions and limited exploration of cultural and organisational barriers.
conclusionsMental health interventions for uniformed service personnel show promise but are influenced by delivery format, occupational culture and contextual factors. This review underscores the need for delivering interventions informed by ecological models, standardised outcome sets and deeper qualitative exploration into stigma and engagement barriers.
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.