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 Australian Gulf War Veterans’ Follow Up Health Study 2015 (Follow Up Study) is a follow up to the original Australian Gulf War Veterans’ Health Study 2003 (the 2003 study), also commissioned by DVA, to assess Gulf War veterans’ health and wellbeing 20 years after deployment.

The Follow Up Study is a longitudinal cohort study conducted from 2010 to 2015.  It compares the physical, psychological and social health and military related exposures of Australian Defence Force veterans of the First Gulf War against a military comparison group and the 2003 study.  A mortality and cancer study component of the Follow Up Study involved the entire Gulf War and military comparison groups, comprising a total of 4,793 people.

At follow up Gulf War veterans were found to be resilient. They were likely to have accessed disability and health services, which may suggest that the Gulf War cohort is seeking help when they need it.  At follow up there was a reduction in smoking, with one half of those who reported being a smoker in the 2003 study no longer smoking.

The Follow Up Study found Gulf War veteran participants were more likely than the military comparison group to suffer from a number of conditions, including posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol disorder, chronic fatigue, irritable bowel syndrome and chronic multisymptom illness.

There were no statistically significant differences in cancer and mortality rates between Gulf War veterans and the military comparison group.

As part of the Australian Gulf War Veterans' Health Study (published in 2003), serum samples were collected from consenting participants, for long-term storage and future potential research. In 2005, a Serum Management Committee (the Committee) was established to provide oversight of the stored samples.

The focus of this review is the comparison of veteran rehabilitation offerings of the Five Eyes countries to understand where Australia's offerings sit in terms of focus, scope of services and eligibility in relation to comparable schemes.

The aim of this Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) was to conduct a review of the scientific evidence regarding whether occupational exposures to jet fuels and specified solvents of most relevance to the military were associated with risks to the reproductive health of women.

The aim of this rapid evidence assessment (REA) was to assess the evidence related to meditation and mindfulness practices (meditation, transcendental meditation, mantra, yoga, and mindfulness) for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and alcohol use disorder (AUD) in adults.

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 Review of PTSD Group Treatment Programs was undertaken by the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health (CMVH) to ensure that services offered to clients of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) were evidence-based and met the needs of both older and contemporary veteran cohorts.

This review came about following a recommendation out of the Independent Study into Suicide in the Ex-Service Community, undertaken by Professor David Dunt in 2009 comprised two phases. The first was a literature review of evidence-based best practice treatment for PTSD.

The second phase critically reviewed PTSD programs offered by providers contracted to DVA. This included the process of referral, the programs themselves, discharge planning and follow-up.

The report offers guidance on the next phase of group treatment programs and DVA will work closely with providers and the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health to ensure treatment programs better met the needs of contemporary veterans. Changes to programs will only be implemented where more effective treatment and improved treatment outcomes for participants will be achieved.

As part of the Government response to the 'Independent Study into Suicide in the Ex-service Community', DVA commissioned the Australian Institute of Suicide Research and Prevention to undertake a review of the Operation Life Suicide Awareness workshops to ensure they were evidenced based. DVA accepted all recommendations made in the final report. 

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.