Chronic pain as a long-term burden for Veterans

Abstract: Chronic pain has often been demonstrated to have significant downstream effects on quality of life, mental and physical health, and can have severe economic and social consequences. At the same time, the risk of chronic pain has been shown to increase if individuals were faced with traumatic experiences. In their work, Vowles et al1 in this issue of BJP demonstrate from a survey data of Northern Irish military veterans that chronic pain is a long-term consequence of armed conflict, and it impacts individuals’ quality of life: chronic pain is coupled with higher rates of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. An interesting aspect specific to this work is that the authors find veterans with chronic pain to be more likely to have served in Home service tasked to manage the sectarian violence and support civil order during the Northen Ireland conflict between 1969 and 2007. Soldiers were on duty within their own communities. Operating in a highly volatile and deeply personal environment has had a profound impact on both their professional duties and personal lives. The survey results imply that playing an active role while in your home region may have further contributed to how pain has become chronic in this cohort, who had no unscarred place to return to. The unique role they played – serving in conflict in their own communities – has created challenges that have continued long after the operation ended including the effects of prolonged trauma. The increased risk of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress posed by pain is like that recently demonstrated in UK military personnel deployed to Afghanistan.2 These two works present some of the first studies linking chronic pain and adverse mental health in UK veterans, extending previous knowledge mainly derived from US cohorts. A shortcoming of these studies is that they are cross sectional, while it will be important to provide timescale analyses of how and when pain and adverse mental health develop after traumatic experiences, and which tends to come first. Still, the similarity of findings from domestic and international cohorts, despite the highly distinct nature of military structures and conflicts, spanning decades and continents (e.g., Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan), hint towards a universality of chronic pain being intrinsically linked with trauma, and form a negatively reinforcing cycle with mental health disorders. This has also been demonstrated in civilian populations, and extended to childhood trauma,3 but it should be kept in mind at which rate armed conflict will increase the risk of any individual exposed, be they military or civilian, to experience severe trauma. Armed conflicts had, for a while, become less prominent in the lives of those living in the Global North. Yet, they were never gone. (Civil) wars, insurgencies, and military uprisings have continued across the world. Through the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, they have become mainstream political points in the Global North again. It should never be forgotten what human toll these conflicts take, including decades after they ended. The impacts of war reach into mental health, personal relationships and daily freedoms and overall well-being. Those affected – soldier, civilians, and communities alike – carry the weight of trauma and loss. Some struggle with the long-term psychological wounds. Recognising these impacts and to support all victims of war, societies must offer comprehensive support systems to address their unique needs. In doing so, we can help build a foundation of understanding and hope for those who have endured the profound costs of conflict.

Read the full article
Report a problem with this article

Related articles

  • More for Policy & Practice

    Medical discharge from the UK Armed Forces and the role of combat injury: A short report from the ADVANCE-INVEST study

    The recent conflict in Afghanistan resulted in hundreds of serious injuries to UK Armed Forces personnel, necessitating their aeromedical evacuation. Due to the nature of their injuries, many individuals have been medically discharged from the Armed Forces. Using both quantitative and qualitative data from the ADVANCE and ADVANCE-INVEST studies, this report investigates the outcomes and experiences of those who were medically discharged, with a focus on those with combat injuries. The ADVANCE-INVEST study, a sub-study of ADVANCE, is a mixed-methods investigation of transition experiences and outcomes for those with combat injuries arising from the conflict in Afghanistan, funded by Forces in Mind Trust. The study used questionnaire data from over 500 ex-Service personnel who had sustained combat injuries, as well as 28 in-depth interviews regarding their perceptions and experiences of transition in the context of their injuries. Most participants who sustained a combat injury left the military via a medical discharge. Some of those who were medically discharged experienced an abrupt ending to their career and life in the military, contrary to their ambitions and expectations of a long career in Service. This was also true of those who believed the military would retain them in spite of the seriousness of their injuries and did not anticipate a medical discharge. The difficulties that some participants felt in relation to the rapid ending of their military career was exacerbated by a perceived lack of collaboration with the military regarding their leaving, something they felt they had little, or no, control over. The abrupt ending to their service was felt to be compounded by a lack of communication from their former military chain of command after they had left.UK Armed Forces personnel who were medically discharged were eligible for the highest level of support provided by resettlement services for their transition. Nonetheless they had lower rates of post-Service employment compared to those who left via other methods of discharge. This could have been due to the nature of their injuries; however, participants also reported a lack of tailored careers advice specific to the challenges they faced related to their injury. The pace at which participants engaged with future career planning was varied, and existing structures did not always have the flexibility to match the needs of the injured person. Transfer of medical records was still reported as being inconsistent, with some complaints of civilian medical practitioners being unable to access their full medical details, forcing injured personnel to retell their medical histories many times. Compensation for injuries was welcomed and could be seen to have benefits beyond merely the immediate material benefit to the injured person; for example, it provided acknowledgement of their injury, a buffer while seeking re-employment in the civilian job market and supported a healthy worklife balance in the context of ongoing pain and medical issues. Conversely, problems could occur when payment amounts and transfer dates were unknown, when a lack of tailored financial advice was provided, and/or when poor financial decisions were made. Some participants were engaged in lengthy tribunal processes to claim compensation, particularly those who were injured but did not sustain limb loss; these processes were emotionally demanding for them. Based upon our findings, a summary of our recommendations and the audiences they are aimed at is given.