Back

Staff perceptions of an NHS military veterans mental health service in the UK: A qualitative evaluation

Talwar, S.; Carlos Osorio, C.; Barslund Blackman, E.; Solomons, S.; Krishnamurthy, J.; Kuhn, R.; Culloty, L.; Greene, T.; Ferrier, S.; Billings, J.

2026-10-08 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.10.06.26364875 medRxiv
Show abstract

Those leaving military service frequently present with complex psychosocial problems, but military veterans are often reluctant to engage with statutory healthcare provision. Specialist mental health services have recently been established in the UK to specifically support military veterans with their psychological and social wellbeing. We explored the treatment and support provided by the London branch of a military veterans mental health and wellbeing service (Op COURAGE) from the perspectives of the multidisciplinary service team and their partner organisations and collaborators. We conducted semi-structured interviews with multidisciplinary service staff and members of their partner organisations and external agencies. Qualitative data were analysed using framework analysis.?A total of 16 professionals participated in this study, comprising five service staff, eight collaborators and three partner agency participants. Five themes with subthemes were identified, including (1) blended networks, (2) staff inclusivity and sensitivity, (3) spectrum of psychosocial interventions and holistic support, (4) referral mechanisms, and (5) (in)visibility of the service and advertising. Our evaluation highlighted the advantages of a multidisciplinary team and collaborative partnerships to meet the psychosocial needs of veteran and their significant others. We have proposed that service improvement could include increasing advertisement about this specialist service, deepening knowledge about veterans among staff and further involving veterans and key stakeholders in service decisions.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.