Dataset Information

Mortality of first world war military personnel: comparison of two military cohorts.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify the impact of the first world war on the lifespan of participating military personnel (including in veterans who survived the war).

Design

Comparison of two cohorts of military personnel, followed to death.

Setting

Military personnel leaving New Zealand to participate in the first world war.

Participants

From a dataset of the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces, we randomly selected participants who embarked on troopships in 1914 and a comparison non-combat cohort who departed on troopships in late 1918 (350 in each group).

Main outcome measures

Lifespan based on dates of birth and death from a range of sources (such as individual military files and an official database of birth and death records).

Results

A quarter of the 1914 cohort died during the war, with deaths from injury predominating (94%) over deaths from disease (6%). This cohort had a significantly shorter lifespan than the late 1918 "non-combat" cohort, with median ages of death being 65.9 versus 74.2, respectively (a difference of 8.3 years shown also in Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log rank P<0.001). The difference for the lifespan of veterans in the postwar period was more modest, with median ages of death being 72.6 versus 74.3, respectively (a difference of 1.7 years, log rank P=0.043). There was no evidence for differences between the cohorts in terms of occupational class, based on occupation at enlistment.

Conclusions

Military personnel going to the first world war in 1914 from New Zealand lost around eight years of life (relative to a comparable military cohort). In the postwar period they continued to have an increased risk of premature death.

SUBMITTER: Wilson N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4266957 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsProvision and need for mental health services among military personnel are a major concern across nations. Two recent comparisons suggest higher rates of mental disorders in US and UK military personnel compared with civilians. However, these findings may not apply to other nations. Previous studies have focused on the overall effects of military service rather than the separate effects of military service and deployment. This study compared German military personnel with and without a history of deployment to sociodemographically matched civilians regarding prevalence and severity of 12-month DSM-IV mental disorders.Method1439 deployed soldiers (DS), 779 never deployed soldiers (NS) and 1023 civilians were assessed with an adapted version of the Munich Composite International Diagnostic interview across the same timeframe. Data were weighted using propensity score methodology to assure comparability of the three samples.ResultsCompared with adjusted civilians, the prevalence of any 12-month disorder was lower in NS (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5-0.99) and did not differ in DS. Significant differences between military personnel and civilians regarding prevalence and severity of individual diagnoses were only apparent for alcohol (DS: OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.6; NS: OR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.1-0.6) and nicotine dependence (DS: OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.6; NS: OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.7) with lower values in both military samples. Elevated rates of panic/agoraphobia (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.4-5.3) and posttraumatic stress disorder (OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.3-8.0) were observed in DS with high combat exposure compared with civilians.ConclusionsRates and severity of mental disorders in the German military are comparable with civilians for internalising and lower for substance use disorders. A higher risk of some disorders is reduced to DS with high combat exposure. This finding has implications for mental health service provision and the need for targeted interventions. Differences to previous US and UK studies that suggest an overall higher prevalence in military personnel might result from divergent study methods, deployment characteristics, military structures and occupational factors. Some of these factors might yield valuable targets to improve military mental health.