DVA commissioned La Trobe University to investigate literature on best practice in in-home domestic assistance programs in order to provide a contemporary evidence base to inform any future policy and program development aimed at improving DVA domestic assistance service offerings to veterans and families.

The Department of Veterans' Affairs commissioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) to identify and synthesise existing research on older veterans, and their families’ experiences and needs in aged care. The project was commissioned to inform any future improvements to the way aged care is delivered to veterans and to identify gaps in understanding of the needs of older veterans and their families in aged care settings.

The aim of this Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) was to conduct a literature review of adverse sexual and reproductive health outcomes in men from occupational exposure to specified solvents relevant to the Australian military.

The two most recent Australian Defence Force Firefighter occupational health research studies are now available.

DVA commissioned an independent Occupational Health Research Studies Review Examining the Occupational Health of Firefighters (October 2017) to assess the current level of medical-scientific evidence for 12 cancers prescribed under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Act 2011 (Firefighters Act), plus melanoma. The review was led by Professor Nicola Fear at King’s Centre for Military Health Research, King’s College London, United Kingdom and consists of three reports:

Allostatic Load: A Review of the Literature was funded under the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Applied Research Program and conducted by the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health.

The report summarises the concepts of homeostasis, allostasis and allostatic load, how chronic stress leads to allostatic load, and examples of the physical and mental conditions which correlate with allostatic load. Allostatic load is an evolving model and only one of several models devised to examine and understand the long term health effects of stress. The model cannot explain all causes of ill-health and disease, however it is emerging as a useful model for investigating how stress experienced during military service may impact negatively on health. There are significant opportunities to improve our understanding of measurement tools and the myriad of challenges related to establishing causality between stress and longer term health outcomes.

This Comparative Literature Review was the first research project to involve collaboration between the Departments of Veterans’ Affairs of the United States of America (US) and Australia, and was funded by the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

The review aimed to gain an understanding of the differences and similarities between post-1990 military deployment contexts, health impacts and veterans’ health care systems in Australia and the US.

By reviewing and analysing existing research and publicly available data, the study found that:

The US deployed significantly more personnel to each of the conflicts. US personnel in the Gulf War were more likely to experience direct combat than Australian personnel. The US also maintained a longer presence in Somalia compared to Australia.

Overall rates of posttraumatic stress disorder were similar between Australia and the US.  Prevalence estimates for US veterans of Iraq tended to be higher compared to Australian veterans, and prevalence estimates for Australian Somalia veterans appeared to be higher than in US veterans.

Gulf War veterans from both countries had a reduced risk of suicide compared with respective general populations.  US veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had high estimated rates of suicidal ideation.  

Estimates of multisymptom illness were lower for Australian Gulf War veterans compared to US Gulf War veterans.

Traumatic brain injury prevalence estimates in Australian Afghanistan/Iraq War veterans were at the low end of those reported in US studies.    

The two countries’ healthcare systems were similar in range of services, focus on mental health, and increasing use of technology. The systems were different in method of service provision and financial structure.

This study was a preliminary overview covering a range of deployments and health and social outcomes.  While it gives an accurate summary of the published literature, it did not test for the statistical significance of differences in health outcomes between different populations.