Do soldiers seek more mental health care after deployment? Analysis of mental health consultations in the Netherlands Armed Forces following deployment to Afghanistan

Background: Military deployment to combat zones puts military personnel to a number of physical and mental challenges that may adversely affect mental health. Until now, few studies have been performed in Europe on mental health utilization after military deployment. Objective: We compared the incidence of mental health consultations with the Military Mental Health Service (MMHS) of military deployed to Afghanistan to that of non-deployed military personnel. Method: We assessed utilization of the MMHS by the full cohort of the Netherlands Armed Forces enlisted between 2008 and 2010 through linkage of mental health and human resource information systems. Results: The total population consisted of 50,508 military (18,233 deployed, 32,275 non-deployed), who accounted for 1,906 new consultations with the MMHS. The follow-up was limited to the first 2 years following deployment. We observed higher mental health care utilization in deployed vs. non-deployed military personnel; hazard ratio (HR), adjusted for sex, military branch and time in service, 1.84 [95% CI 1.61–2.11] in the first and 1.28 [1.09–1.49] in the second year after deployment. An increased risk of adjustment disorders (HR 2.59 [2.02–3.32] and 1.74 [1.30–2.32]) and of anxiety disorders (2.22 [1.52–3.25] and 2.28 [1.50–3.45]) including posttraumatic stress disorder (5.15 [2.55–10.40] and 5.28 [2.42–11.50]), but not of mood disorders (1.33 [0.90–1.97] and 1.11 [0.68–1.82]), was observed in deployed personnel in the first- and second-year post-deployment, respectively. Military personnel deployed in a unit with a higher risk of confrontation with potentially traumatic events had a higher HR (2.13 [1.84–2.47] and 1.40 [1.18–1.67]). Conclusions: Though absolute risk was low, in the first and second year following deployment to Afghanistan there was an 80 and 30% higher risk for mental health problems resulting in a consultation with the Dutch MMHS compared to military never deployed to Afghanistan. These observations underscore the need for an adequate mental health infrastructure for those returning from deployment

Culture(s) of control: Political dynamics in cannabis policy in England & Wales and the Netherlands

© 2016, © The Author(s) 2016. This paper draws upon an empirical comparative study of policy-making in England & Wales and the Netherlands. Recent changes in cannabis policy prima facie indicate some convergence towards a toughening of approaches, thereby suggesting commonalities in control cultures. However, analysis of findings illuminate significant differences in the policy process between these jurisdictions which contribute towards continued divergence towards small-scale supply and consumption of cannabis. It is argued that this can be understood and explained through an understanding of differences in both political institutions and cultures, and in organizational responsibilities and relations of power. Consequentially, this further supports the notion that comparative research and theorizing needs to take account of mechanisms and features which lead to variegated control cultures

Genetic screening and democracy: lessons from debating genetic screening criteria in the Netherlands

Recent decades have witnessed increasing possibilities for genetic testing and screening. In clinical genetics, the doctor’s office defined a secluded space for discussion of sensitive reproductive options in cases of elevated risk for genetic disorders in individuals or their offspring. When prenatal screening for all pregnant women became conceivable, the potential increase in scale made social and ethical concerns relevant for the whole of society. Whereas genetic testing in clinical genetic practice was widely accepted, prenatal screening at a population level met with unease. Concerns were raised regarding social pressure to screen: the sum of individual choice might result in a ‘collective eugenics’. The government’s involvement also raised suspicion: actively offering screening evoked associations with eugenic population policies from the first half of the 20th century. By reconstructing elements of policy and public debate on prenatal screening in the Netherlands from the past 30 years, this article discusses how the government has gradually changed its role in balancing the interest of the individual and the collective on genetic reproductive issues. Against a background of increasing knowledge about and demand for prenatal screening among the population, governmental policy changed from focusing on protection by banning screening toward facilitating screening in a careful and ethically sound way by providing adequate information, decision aids and quality assessment instruments. In the meanwhile, invigorating democracy in public debate may entail discussing concepts of ‘the good life’ in relation to living with or without impairments and dealing with genetic information about oneself or one’s offspring

The undebated issue of justice: silent discourses in Dutch flood risk management

Flood risk for all types of flooding is projected to increase based on climate change projections and increases in damage potential. These challenges are likely to aggravate issues of justice in flood risk management (henceforth FRM). Based on a discursive-institutionalist perspective, this paper explores justice in Dutch FRM: how do institutions allocate the responsibilities and costs for FRM for different types of flooding? What are the underlying conceptions of justice? What are the future challenges with regard to climate change? The research revealed that a dichotomy is visible in the Dutch approach to FRM: despite an abundance of rules, regulations and resources spent, flood risk or its management, are only marginally discussed in terms of justice. Despite that the current institutional arrangement has material outcomes that treat particular groups of citizens differently, depending on the type of flooding they are prone to, area they live in (unembanked/embanked) or category of user (e.g. household, industry, farmer). The paper argues that the debate on justice will (re)emerge, since the differences in distributional outcomes are likely to become increasingly uneven as a result of increasing flood risk. The Netherlands should be prepared for this debate by generating the relevant facts and figures. An inclusive debate on the distribution of burdens of FRM could contribute to more effective and legitimate FRM