{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021834061135371178, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004366812227074236, 'mean_word_length': 5.47457627118644, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Support of marines and sailors returning from combat: a comparison of two different mental health models.

As Navy medicine continues to support the Global War on Terrorism, various approaches are used to attenuate combat stress casualties. This article examines two different mental health models, one employed at sea and one in the combat zone, used for active duty forces immediately after cessation of combat operations. Both models focus on screening, early prevention, and treatment implemented during the transition from the combat theater to garrison. Returning by sea provided the opportunity for greater education and decompression of combat stress as the service members transitioned back to garrison when compared to those who returned by air. It was also found that the Post Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA) did not capture as many individuals with mental health issues leaving combat theater, which identified 6% on both missions, compared to the capture rate with the Post Deployment Psychological Screener (PDPS), which identified 16-20%. Limitations, opportunities, and recommendations for future interventions are discussed.