Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42013070›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Military personnel perspectives on participating in health research: A scoping review.

Michelle L Townsend, Heidi Green, Belinda Fabrianesi, Annette Braunack-Mayer

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michelle L TownsendAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8921-781X
Heidi GreenAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7908-3819
Belinda FabrianesiAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Annette Braunack-MayerAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4427-0224

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Military service can significantly affect the health and wellbeing of current and former serving personnel. Although health research aims to address these impacts, little is known about how military personnel perceive such research. The aim of this scoping review was to investigate military personnel's perspectives on participating in health research. A scoping review of the literature was conducted using the JBI Scoping Review Methodology. Studies were included if they included the perspectives of military personnel or veterans on health research with military populations based on their own or others' experiences. Studies could be in any geographical location and in any context, including in combat, and not limited to any specific health issue. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted across multiple databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO. Unpublished studies and grey literature were searched using MedNar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google Scholar. The extracted data included information on participants, study design, country, and key findings relevant to the review question. All aspects were undertaken by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis approach was used to identify and organise key themes across included studies. Ten studies were included in the review, all were conducted in the United States, and the majority involved veteran populations. The included studies comprised both qualitative studies (e.g., interviews, focus groups) and quantitative studies (cross-sectional surveys). Themes related to military personnel's perspectives on health research conducted with military populations were identified. A primary theme identified military personnel's motivations for participating in health research-altruism, a sense of moral duty, and personal benefit-which often overlapped. Four additional themes described factors that enable or hinder participation: (1) increasing research awareness and tailoring study information for military audiences; (2) considering participant convenience and appropriate incentives; (3) integrating diversity considerations throughout study design, conduct, and dissemination; and (4) strengthening participants' trust in research and researchers. Together, these themes show that military personnel's perspectives on health research are shaped by their underlying motivations, the practical and informational conditions that support participation, and the trust and inclusivity embedded within the research process. This scoping review identified a range of practical strategies that can be implemented to encourage military personnel to take part in research. We also identified key barriers that need to be addressed. In particular, using a co-design approach throughout the research cycle can enhance trust among participants and the relevance and utility of the research outcome. Oversight by a human research ethics committee is also important. Application of these findings can strengthen the impact of health research involving military personnel, contributing to improved health outcomes for the broader community.

Indexed as

Military MedicineMilitary PersonnelResearch SubjectsVeteransHumans

Identifiers

PMID42013070
PMCPMC13098902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.