A community-based agency developed training for Cleveland Police Department Lieutenants and Supervisory Sergeants. This training adapted current methods used by the U.S. Army to deal with military combat stress. Police leaders were trained to recognize signs of operational stress in their line officers and provide “Leader Actions” to minimize long-term sequelae of operational stress, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, absenteeism, resignation, and misconduct. Laminated pocket cards were provided which summarized warning signs of operational stress, self-care and partner-care actions, and leader strategies to treat early signs of operational stress. Based on focus groups with police supervisors, an incentive system was developed and implemented to reward officers seeking help or assisting other officers in managing operational stress, which could change the culture of keeping silent about problems and remove the stigma attached to help seeking. Eighty-three police supervisors have been trained, with plans to provide further training to district (precinct) commanders.

Although a significant number of soldiers desire OCP-induced amenorrhea, a large deficit in knowledge exists. Routine education as an Army-wide standard is warranted.

Military families have been a subject of concern due to increasing divorce rates and child maltreatment that have been directly linked to the number and length of combat deployments. In contrast many military families show positive resilience in the wake of multiple deployments. This article looks at several special situations where military families are faced with serious challenges after deployment: soldiers returning with post-traumatic stress disorder, soldiers receiving serious injuries, and those killed in action. McCubbin's Family Resilience Model is applied as a theoretical tool for understanding not only the stressors military families face, but other factors that buffer stress and assist in problem solving and coping.

This pilot study reveals a low level of agreement between physicians regarding which athletes with an abnormal examination deserved further testing. It challenges the standard of care and questions whether there is a need for improved technologies or improved training in cardiovascular clinical assessment.

Thompson, and McCubbin (1996)