ArticleBMJ open2026
What is the effectiveness of services and interventions for Armed Forces transitioning to veteran status, and what opportunities are there for improvement: a scoping review of health-related evidence.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify and map health-related services and interventions that support Armed Forces transitioning to veteran status, and to synthesise evidence on their potential effectiveness.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Cochrane (Wiley), Web of Science (Clarivate), ASSIA (ProQuest) and PTSD Pubs (Proquest), citation chasing and web searches.
participantsArmed Forces members, veterans, family members and service providers from the UK, Europe, Canada, Australia or New Zealand.
interventionsHealth-related services and interventions intended to support military to civilian transition. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Health and wellbeing outcomes (eg, mental health symptoms, quality of life), broader transition-related outcomes (eg, employment, housing, social connection), acceptability, barriers and facilitators to intervention or service engagement. ANALYTICAL
methodsTabulation and narrative synthesis (using thematic analysis for qualitative studies).
resultsThirty-four unique studies were included, reporting data on 10 040 veterans and transitioning service personnel. Twenty-two distinct interventions were identified and grouped into five categories: (1) art-based, (2) sport or outdoor-based, (3) peer- or group-based, (4) employment, skills or education training and (5) digital technology interventions. Most evidence originated from the UK, with additional studies from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. While no critical appraisal of study quality was performed within this review, quantitative evaluations suggested benefits for mental health, wellbeing and reintegration outcomes for some intervention types; however, evidence was heterogeneous and variable in outcome measurement. Qualitative evidence highlighted value in social connection, identity and purpose, and identified barriers related to awareness, access, acceptability and the need for tailored provision.
conclusionsA diverse range of services and interventions are available to support transition to civilian life, but the strength and consistency of the evidence varied considerably, meaning findings should be interpreted as identifying potentially valuable approaches rather than established best practices. Future research should prioritise robust evaluation designs, consistent outcome reporting and attention to implementation and equity. Service planners may benefit from improved signposting and better integration across health, social care and third-sector pathways to support veterans during transition. STUDY REGISTRATION: Zenodo record 17630661.
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.