Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Personality and Health in Military Context:

A Study of Combatants and Injured Servicemen

Oleg Kokun

1, 3

, Victor Aleshchenko

, Vasyl Osyodlo

, Iryna Pischko

, Natalia Lozinska

G.S. Kostiuk Institute of Psychology of National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

National Defence University of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

Research Centre of Humanitarian Problem of Armed Forces of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

Abstract

Introduction: The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has placed significant mental and physical health

burdens on military personnel, including both elite combat troops and injured servicemen in

rehabilitation. Understanding the factors that influence their healt

h outcomes is crucial for

developing effective support and intervention strategies.

Purpose: This study aims to analyse the relationships between negative indicators of mental and

physical health (PTSD symptoms and somatic complaints) and personal characteristics (resilience,

self-efficacy, and Big Five personality traits) in two distinct samples of military personnel: elite

combat troops and injured servicemen in rehabilitation. By comparing these groups, the study

seeks to understand how personal characteristics influence health outcomes and whether the

impact differs based on the context of military service.

Methodology:

The study involved 180 Ukrainian military personnel (all men) divided into two

groups: 149 elite combat troops and 31 injured

combatants in rehabilitation. Participants

completed self-report measures assessing PTSD symptoms, physical complaints, resilience, self-

efficacy, and personality traits. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, ranges,

skewness, and kurtosis) were computed, and independent samples t-tests and Cohen’s d were

calculated to determine differences between the groups. Pearson's bivariate correlations and Z-

tests were conducted to examine relationships between health indicators and personal

characteristics. Multiple linear regression analysis (using the forward method) was performed to

construct prognostic models for mental and physical health outcomes.

Results: Injured combatants exhibited significantly higher levels of PTSD symptoms, exhaustion,

and various physical complaints compared to elite combat troops. In contrast, elite combat

troops showed higher levels of resilience, self-

efficacy, extraversion, and emotional stability.

Regression models highlighted self-efficacy, resilience, and emotional stability as key predictors

of reduced PTSD symptoms and physical complaints, with varying predictive values across the two

groups.

Conclusion: The study underscores the importance of personal characteristics in mitigating the

negative health impacts of combat exposure within the global mental health landscape. Tailored

interventions enhancing resilience, self-efficacy, and emotional stability are crucial, particularly

for injured combatants. Future research should employ longitudinal designs and larger samples

to further understand the dynamics of these relationships and support the well-being of military

personnel on a global scale. By addressing these critical areas, we can develop more effective

strategies to support the mental health and recovery of those affected by combat and conflict

worldwide.

Keywords

Mental Health, military personnel, PTSD, resilience, self-efficacy, Big Five personality traits

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Address for correspondence:

Oleg Kokun, G.S. Kostiuk Institute of Psychology, 2 Pankivska, Kyiv, Ukraine TX, 01033

E-mail: kokun@ukr.net

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International

License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

©Copyright: Kokun et al., 2024

Publisher: Sciendo (De Gruyter)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56508/mhgcj.v7i1.207

Submitted for publication: 18

February 2024

Revised: 21 June 2024

Accepted for publication: 04

July 2024

Introduction

Russ

ia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022,

initiated the most serious and bloody military

conflict in Europe since 1945. Although neither

country releases official data on their military losses

during the war, estimates from various sources

suggest that military casualties on both sides have

reached hundreds of thousands by the end of

2023 (Reuters, 2023). The ongoing hostilities in

Ukraine have placed significant stress on its military

personnel, who face not only the dangers of

combat but also substantial mental and physical

health challenges (Prykhodko et al., 2023). Among

these personnel are elite combat troops, who are

engaged in continuous front-line activities, and

servicemen who have been injured and are

receiving treatment in military rehabilitation

centres. Understanding the factors that contribute

to their mental and physical health is crucial for

developing effective support and intervention

strategies.

Military service, especially in active combat

zones, exposes individuals to extreme stressors that

can have lasting impacts on both mental and

physical health (Kokun et al., 2022; Osorio et al.,

2018). The ongoing war and instability in Ukraine

create an environment where the negative effects

on mental and physical health are particularly

pronounced. The psychological impact of

combat on military personnel can lead to post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety,

depression, alcohol abuse, suicidality, and various

somatic symptoms, all of which can severely

impair their functioning and quality of life (Kokun et

al., 2023; Shen et al., 2009). PTSD symptoms,

including flashbacks, nightmares, and severe

anxiety, are common among combatants.

Somatic complaints, such as chronic pain,

fatigue, and gastrointestinal issues, often

accompany these psychological symptoms,

creating a complex interplay between mental

and physical health. Previous studies have shown

high prevalence rates of these conditions among

combatants, emphasizing the need for effective

prevention and treatment strategies (Dami et al.,

2018; Prykhodko et al., 2023; Seal et al., 2009).

Individual differences in personal

characteristics, such as resilience, self-efficacy,

and personality traits, play a crucial role in

determining how military personnel cope with

stress and recover from traumatic experiences.

Resilience, defined as the ability to adapt flexibly,

recover, and grow from adverse experiences

(Masten et al., 2021; Southwick et al., 2014), is a

crucial factor that can mitigate the negative

effects of combat exposure. Self-efficacy, the

belief in one's ability to solve problems and control

life events (Slone et al., 2013), is another important

determinant of combatants’ psychological well-

being. The Big Five personality traits—extraversion,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,

and openness to experience—have been

extensively studied in relation to mental health

outcomes. These traits influence how individuals

perceive and respond to stress, with certain traits

being protective while others may increase

vulnerability (Ringwald et al., 2024).

Despite the extensive research on these personal

characteristics, there is a paucity of studies

specifically examining their impact on health

outcomes in military servicemen. Furthermore,

comparative analyses between different groups

within the military, such as elite combat troops and

injured servicemen undergoing rehabilitation, are

rare. Understanding how these groups differ in their

responses to stress and trauma can provide

valuable insights for tailored interventions (Shvets et

al., 2022).

Purpose

This s

tudy aims to fill this gap by analysing the

relationships between negative indicators of

mental and physical health (number of PTSD

symptoms and somatic complaints) and personal

characteristics (resilience, self-efficacy, and Big

Five personality traits) in two distinct samples of

military personnel: elite combat troops and injured

servicemen in rehabilitation. By comparing these

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

groups, we seek to understand how personal

characteristics influence health outcomes and

whether the impact differs based on the context

of their military service.

Methodology

rticipants

The study involved 180 Ukrainian military personnel

(all men) divided into two groups. The first group

comprised 149 Ukrainian servicemen selected for

an elite combat troop of the Armed Forces of

Ukraine. Participants were aged 22–59 years (M =

36.9, SD = 8.4) and had participated in combat

operations for 1 to 11 months (M = 3.4, SD = 0.64)

during the Russian-Ukrainian war. Among these

149 military personnel, 118 were soldiers (79.2%),

25 were non-commissioned officers (16.8%), and

6 were commissioned officers (4.0%). Data

collection took place at a military training centre

from January to March 2023.

The second group consisted of 31 Ukrainian

combatants, aged 20 to 54 years (M = 34.3, SD

= 8.5), who were injured during hostilities and were

receiving treatment at a military rehabilitation

centre. In this group, 18 were soldiers (58.0%), 10

were non-commissioned officers (32.1%), and 3

were commissioned officers (9.9%). The study was

conducted from February to March 2023.

Participants completed questionnaires

individually using paper and pencil.

Ethical considerations

All study procedures adhered to the ethical

standards of relevant national and institutional

guidelines on human experimentation and the

Helsinki Declaration of 1975, revised in 2008. The

investigation was conducted with the approval of

the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Informed consent was obtained from all

participants, who were informed that participation

was voluntary and that they could refuse or

withdraw from the study at any time. Complete

confidentiality was maintained, and only

anonymized data were used in the statistical

analysis.

Asse

ssments

In line with the study's aims, we employed

measures to assess two primary constructs:

indicators of negative mental and physical health,

and personal characteristics that aid military

personnel in coping with stress and recovering

from traumatic experiences..

Negative Mental and Physical Health

We used Ukrainian adaptations of two self-report

measures. The first measure was the Short

Screening Scale for DSM–IV PTSD (Breslau et al.,

1999), which consists of seven yes/no items. It

evaluates symptoms such as avoidance of

trauma-related stimuli, loss of interest in activities,

feelings of isolation, difficulty in receiving affection,

a sense of a foreshortened future, sleep

disturbances, and heightened reactivity. Scores

are derived by tallying affirmative responses, with

a score of 4 or higher indicating a likely PTSD

diagnosis. In this study, we utilized the total score.

The second measure was the Giessen

Subjective Complaints List (GBB-24; Brähler et al.,

2008), a standardized scale that quantifies 24

physical complaints grouped into four subscales:

exhaustion, gastric, joint, and heart. Each

subscale contains six questions. Participants rate

their level of impairment for each complaint on a

five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 1 = hardly, 2

= somewhat, 3 = considerable, or 4 = yes,

absolutely). The sum of all subscales yields a

general ‘pressure of physical complaints’ score

that ranges from 0 to 96.

rsonal Characteristics

We assessed the personal characteristics of

military personnel using Ukrainian adaptations of

three measures that tap into resilience, self-

efficacy, and personality traits. The Connor-

Davidson Resilience Scale 10-Item Version (CD-

RISC; Campbell‐Sills & Stein, 2007) is a self-report

measure of resilience. Participants rate 10

statements on a five-point Likert scale ranging

from 0 = never to 4 = almost always. Total scores

range from 0 to 40, with all items in the scale

positively worded.

The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer

& Jerusalem, 1995) evaluates perceptions of

competence in effectively managing stressful

situations. The instrument consists of 10 statements

rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =

completely wrong to 4 = completely correct.

Total scores range from 10 to 40.

The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling

et al., 2003) measures the Big Five personality

traits: extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, emotional stability (instead of

neuroticism, which is reverse-coded), and

openness to experience. Each of the five

subscales comprises two items, with item scores

ranging from 1 to 7 and subscale scores from 2 to

14.

Sta

tistical Analysis

Data were analysed in three steps. First, descriptive

statistics (means, standard deviations, ranges,

skewness, and kurtosis) were computed, and

independent samples t-tests and Cohen’s d were

calculated to determine differences in the

indicators between the two groups of military

personnel. Second, Pearson's bivariate

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

correlations and Z-tests for comparison of

correlations from independent samples were

conducted within both groups to examine the

relationships between indicators of negative

mental and physical health and personal

characteristics. Third, multiple linear regression

analysis (using the forward method) was

performed in both groups to further explore these

patterns of association by constructing prognostic

models for the two main indicators of negative

mental and physical health.

Results

Des

criptive statistics and comparisons of data for

the indicators between the two groups of military

personnel are presented in Table 1. Results

showed that almost all variables were

approximately normally distributed, as indicated

by skewness and kurtosis values, which were both

less than 1. Only gastric complaints in the second

group and heart complaints in the first group

slightly exceeded this value. Consequently, we

were able to use parametric methods of statistical

analysis.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and comparison of all variables between two groups of military personnel

Variable Group

M SD Range

Skewness Kurtosis t

p Cohen’s d

PTSD symptoms

first

1.41 1.47

0–7

0.98 0.51

-7.12 < .001 1.55

second

4.19 2.07

0–7

-0.42 -0.91

Exhaustion

first

4.50 4.46

0–18

0.78 0.23

-6.92 < .001 1.51

second

12.68 6.26

0–24

-0.02 -0.82

Gastric complaints

first

2.81 3.15

0–18

1.14 1.28

-3.80 < .001 0.80

second

5.55 3.77

1–15

0.63 -0.27

Joint complaints

first

7.04 5.53

0–21

0.74 -0.44

-6.29 < .001 1.23

second

13.77 5.40

5–22

-0.26 -0.84

Heart complaints

first

2.39 3.52

0–19

1.18 1.34

-5.21 < .001 1.15

second

7.55 5.28

0–22

0.58 0.33

Pressure of physical

complaints

first

16.74 14.52

0–69

0.88 0.93

-6.68 < .001 1.40

second

39.55 17.82

0–78

-0.02 -0.48

Resilience

first

25.68 6.94

9–40

-0.24 -0.51

3.82 < .001

-0.79

second

19.71 8.10

1–32

-0.52 -0.76

Self-efficacy

first

29.88 4.74

14–40

-0.38 0.94

2.36 .023 -0.49

second

27.35 5.55

17–40

-0.06 -0.38

Extraversion

first

8.77 2.32

1–14

-0.69 0.96

3.35 .002 -0.68

second

7.17 2.39

2–12

-0.24 -0.20

Agreeableness

first

10.65 2.15

2–14

-0.84 0.98

1.29 .205 -0.26

second

10.07 2.27

5–14

-0.54 -0.17

Conscientiousness

first

10.61 2.27

3–14

-0.76 0.17

0.10 .917 -0.02

second

10.57 2.27

5–14

-0.39 -0.11

Emotional stability

first

9.83 2.37

4–14

-0.41 -0.07

4.37 < .001

-0.93

second

7.37 2.88

2–12

-0.49 -0.62

Openness to

experience

first

9.66 2.45

1–14

-0.44 0.14

0.15 .878 -0.03

second

9.57 3.00

3–14

-0.30 -0.55

First group – an elite combat troop (n = 149); second group – injured combatants (n = 31).

An independent-samples t-test (equal variances not assumed).

Analysis of correlations between indicators of

negative mental and physical health and

personal characteristics (Table 2) shows that in

both groups, higher levels of resilience and self-

efficacy were associated with lower levels of all

indicators of negative mental and physical health.

Most of these correlations are statistically

significant, reaching the highest values in cases

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

with PTSD symptoms and exhaustion (r = -.35 – -

.54; p < .001). Additionally, higher levels of

emotional stability were associated with lower

levels of all indicators of negative mental and

physical health. These correlations are also

statistically significant in the vast majority of cases,

reaching the highest values in PTSD symptoms and

exhaustion in the injured combatants group (r = -

.53 – -.58; p < .001). There are no reliable

correlations with the remaining three Big Five

personality traits – extraversion, agreeableness,

and openness to experience – and indicators of

negative mental and physical health, with the

exception of one case – the correlation between

exhaustion and openness to experience in injured

combatants (r = -.36; p = .05).

Tab

le 2. Bivariate correlations between indicators of negative mental and physical health and personal

characteristics in two military personnel groups

Mental and physical

health variables

Group

Personal characteristics

Resilie-

nce

Self-

efficacy

Extra-

version

Agreea-

bleness

Con-

scien-

tiousness

Emotio-

nal

stability

Open-

ness to

expe-

rience

PTSD symptoms

first

–.40*** –.35*** –.12 –.17* –.20* –.34*** –.14

second

–.54** –.54** –.25 –.05 –.14 –.53** –.29

Exhaustion

first

–.37*** –.36*** –.13 –.04

–.29

***

–.31*** –.15

second

–.39* –.39* –.29 –.04

.11

–.58*** –.36*

Gastric complaints

first

–.28*** –.32*** .03 –.10 –.39*** –.23** –.07

second

–.09 –.25 .03 .21 –.10 –.24 .01

Joint complaints

first

–.36*** –.32*** –.07 –.01 –.22

** –.18* –.07

second

–.07 –.20 .15 .15 .22

–.25 –.07

Heart complaints

first

–.33*** –.33*** –.08 –.10

–.41

***

–.22** –.12

second

–.27 –.43* –.04 .07

.05

–.42* –.20

Pressure of physical

complaints

first

–.39*** –.38*** –.08 –.06

–.36

***

–.27*** –.12

second

–.26 –.38* –.06 .09 .10

–.45** –.21

*p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

First group – an elite combat troop (n = 149); second group – injured combatants (n = 31).

(z = -1.98; p = .024);

(z = -2.17; p = .015);

(z = -2.35; p = .009);

(z = -2.31; p = .010).

Only

one personality trait – conscientiousness –

showed significant differences in the size of

correlations with indicators of negative mental and

physical health between the two groups:

exhaustion (z = -1.98; p = .024), joint complaints

(z = -2.17; p = .015), heart complaints (z = -2.35;

p = .009), and overall pressure of physical

complaints (z = -2.31; p = .010). The direction of

this difference indicates a significant decrease in

the severity of the negative association between

conscientiousness and indicators of negative

mental and physical health in injured combatants

compared to elite combat troops.

To further explore these patterns of association,

we constructed two prognostic models for each of

the two military personnel groups and tested these

using multiple regression. These models predicted

military personnel's mental and physical health

deterioration and were tested with PTSD symptoms

(Table 3) and pressure of physical complaints

(Table 4) as separate dependent variables. All

constructed models turned out to be highly

informative (R = .45 – .59; R² = .21 – .34).

The most informative model was that

predicting PTSD symptoms in injured combatants

(R = .59; F = 14.6, p < .001; R² = .34). It included

only one predictor of reduced PTSD symptoms –

self-efficacy (β = -0.58; p < .001). The

informativeness of this model in the elite combat

troop was: R = .47; F = 19.4, p < .001; R² = .22.

It included resilience, as the strongest predictor of

reduced PTSD symptoms (β = -0.35; p < .001), as

well as emotional stability (β = -0.22; p = .008).

The predictive value of the model for the

pressure of physical complaints in the elite

combat troop (R = .50; F = 21.1, p < .001; R² =

.25) was somewhat higher than in injured

combatants (R = .45; F = 7.28, p = .012; R² =

.21). It included resilience as the strongest

predictor of reduced physical complaints (β = -

0.35; p < .001), as well as conscientiousness (β =

-0.27; p = .001). The model for pressure of physical

complaints in injured combatants, similar to the

model predicting PTSD symptoms, included only

one predictor, which was emotional stability (β = -

0.45; p = .012).

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Tab

le 3. Multiple regression analysis: personal characteristics as predictors of mental health deterioration in

two military personnel groups (dependent variable – PTSD symptoms)

Group

Predictors

and excluded variables

R R

between/

within

group

variance,

95% confidence

interval for B

Beta t p VIF

Lower

bound

Upper

bound

first

(Constant)

.47 .22

19.4

33.2/1.71

< .001

4.72

3.62

5.82

< .001

Resilience

-0.08

-0.11

-0.04

-0.35

-4.28

< .001

1.15

Emotional stability

-0.14

-0.23

-0.04

-0.22

-2.69

.008

1.15

Extraversion

-.07

-.95

.343

1.01

Agreeableness

-.11

-1.40

.164

1.08

Conscientiousness

-.05

-.65

.516

1.14

Openness to experience

.10

1.22

.224

1.28

Self-efficacy

-.06

-.60

.547

1.89

second

(Constant)

.59 .34

14.6

40.5/2.78

< .001

10.06

6.90

13.21

6.53

< .001

Self-efficacy -0.21 -0.32 -0.10 -0.58

-3.82

< .001

1.00

Extraversion

-.25

-1.68

.105

1.00

Agreeableness

.03

0.19

.850

1.02

Conscientiousness

.09

0.55

.590

1.17

Emotional stability

-.25

-1.25

.223

1.78

Openness to experience

.05

0.27

.787

1.43

Resilience

-.21

-0.75

.459

3.26

First group – an elite combat troop (n = 149); second group – injured combatants (n = 31).

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis: personal characteristics as predictors of physical health deterioration in

two military personnel groups (dependent variable – pressure of physical complaints)

Group

Predictors

and excluded variables

R R

between/

within

group

variance,

95% confidence

interval for B

Beta t p VIF

Lower

bound

Upper

bound

first

(Constant)

.50 .25

22.1

3445/155

< .001

53.84

42.26

65.43

9.19

< .001

Resilience

-0.75

-1.07

-0.42

-0.35

-4.56

< .001

1.07

Conscientiousness

-1.71

-2.66

-0.76

-0.27

-3.56

.001

1.07

Extraversion

-.01

-0.11

.913

1.02

Agreeableness

.07

0.83

.407

1.21

Emotional stability

-.07

-0.84

.402

1.23

Openness to experience

.13

1.61

.110

1.27

Self-efficacy

-.06

-0.55

.584

2.08

second

(Constant)

.45 .21

7.28

1908/262

.012

59.73

42.86

76.59

7.25

< .001

Emotional stability -2.81 -4.95 -0.68 -0.45

-2.70

.012 1.00

Extraversion

.05

.31

.761

1.07

Agreeableness

.11

.65

.520

1.00

Conscientiousness

.13

.79

.435

1.01

Openness to experience

.10

.49

.631

1.55

Resilience

.22

.81

.423

2.59

Self-efficacy

-.12

-.54

.592

1.78

First group – an elite combat troop (n = 149); second group – injured combatants (n = 31).

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Discussion

terpretation of Findings

The present study aimed to analyse the

relationships between negative indicators of

mental and physical health (PTSD symptoms and

somatic complaints) and personal characteristics

(resilience, self-efficacy, and Big Five personality

traits) in two distinct samples of Ukrainian military

personnel: elite combat troops and injured

servicemen in rehabilitation. The findings provide

significant insights into how these personal

characteristics influence health outcomes and

highlight differences based on the context of

military service.

The results revealed that injured combatants

exhibited significantly higher levels of negative

mental and physical health indicators compared

to elite combat troops. This finding aligns with

previous research indicating that physical injuries

sustained in combat can exacerbate

psychological distress and somatic complaints

(Maia et al., 2011; Seal et al., 2007). Injured

combatants, who often face prolonged recovery

periods and potential long-term disabilities, may

experience heightened stress and anxiety,

contributing to their higher levels of PTSD

symptoms, exhaustion, and physical complaints.

In contrast, elite combat troops

demonstrated higher levels of resilience, self-

efficacy, extraversion, and emotional stability,

which are recognized as protective factors against

stress and trauma (Kokun, 2024; Kokun &

Bezverkhyi, 2024; Masten et al., 2021; Southwick et

al., 2014). These traits likely enable elite combat

troops to cope more effectively with the demands

of combat, maintaining their mental and physical

health despite the challenging conditions. The

rigorous selection and training processes for elite

troops might also play a role in enhancing these

protective characteristics, equipping them with

the skills and mindset necessary to handle combat

stressors.

The correlation analysis further supported the

protective role of resilience, self-efficacy, and

emotional stability. In both groups, higher levels of

these personal characteristics were associated

with lower levels of all indicators of negative

mental and physical health. These findings are

consistent with the literature suggesting that

resilience helps individuals recover from adverse

experiences and adapt to stress (Bonanno et al.,

2015). Self-efficacy, or the belief in one's ability to

manage and overcome challenges, is crucial in

navigating the uncertainties and pressures of

military service (Bandura, 1997). Emotional

stability, which involves maintaining composure

and managing emotions effectively, is particularly

important in high-stress environments like combat

(McCrae & Costa, 1987).

Interestingly, the study found significant

differences in the associations between

conscientiousness and indicators of negative

mental and physical health between the two

groups. In injured combatants, the negative

associations between conscientiousness and

health indicators were less pronounced

compared to elite combat troops. This might

suggest that the impact of conscientiousness,

which typically involves diligent and disciplined

behaviour (Javaras et al., 2019), is moderated by

the severity of the combat experience and the

presence of physical injuries. Injured combatants

may face challenges that overwhelm their

conscientious tendencies, such as dealing with

pain, disability, and the psychological burden of

injury.

The regression models provided additional

insights into the predictive value of personal

characteristics for health outcomes. The most

informative model was the one predicting PTSD

symptoms in injured combatants, where self-

efficacy emerged as the sole significant predictor.

This underscores the critical role of self-efficacy in

managing PTSD symptoms, particularly in

individuals dealing with the added stress of

physical injuries. For the elite combat troops,

resilience and emotional stability were the key

predictors of reduced PTSD symptoms, highlighting

the multifaceted nature of psychological

resilience in this group.

Similarly, the models predicting the pressure

of physical complaints highlighted the importance

of resilience and conscientiousness in elite

combat troops, while emotional stability was the

sole predictor for injured combatants. These

findings suggest that different personal

characteristics may play varying roles in mitigating

physical health complaints depending on the

context and severity of combat experiences.

Overall, the study emphasizes the complex

interplay between personal characteristics and

health outcomes in military personnel. The findings

underscore the need for tailored interventions that

enhance resilience, self-efficacy, and emotional

stability, particularly for injured combatants who

face unique challenges in their recovery and

rehabilitation. Future research should continue to

explore these relationships using longitudinal

designs and larger, more diverse samples to

further our understanding of how to best support

the well-being of military personnel.

Practical value

The finding

s of this study have important practical

implications for military training and rehabilitation

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

programs. Enhancing resilience and self-efficacy

through targeted interventions could help mitigate

the negative mental and physical health

outcomes in military personnel. Training programs

for elite combat troops should continue to focus

on these personal characteristics to maintain their

high levels of resilience and emotional stability. For

injured combatants, rehabilitation programs

should incorporate psychological support that

strengthens self-efficacy and emotional stability,

alongside physical recovery.

Furthermore, the study underscores the need

for tailored interventions that consider the specific

contexts and experiences of different military

groups. Developing specialized programs for

injured servicemen that address both physical and

psychological rehabilitation can facilitate their

recovery and improve their overall well-being

(Kang et al., 2024; Vus & Esterlis, 2022).

Limitations and Future Directions

Des

pite the valuable insights provided by this

study, there are several limitations that need to be

addressed. The cross-sectional design limits the

ability to draw causal inferences about the

relationships between personal characteristics

and health outcomes. Future research should

employ longitudinal designs to better understand

the temporal dynamics of these relationships.

Additionally, the sample size, particularly for the

injured combatants group, was relatively small,

which may limit the generalizability of the findings.

Larger studies with more diverse samples are

needed to validate these results and explore

potential variations across different military

contexts. Future research should also investigate

other potential moderators and mediators, such

as social support and coping strategies, to provide

a more comprehensive understanding of the

factors influencing mental and physical health in

military personnel.

Conclusions

This

study highlights the significant impact of

personal characteristics on the mental and

physical health of military personnel in the context

of global mental health challenges. Resilience,

self-efficacy, and emotional stability emerged as

key protective factors against PTSD symptoms and

somatic complaints. The findings emphasize the

importance of tailored interventions that enhance

these personal characteristics, particularly for

injured combatants undergoing rehabilitation.

Addressing the unique needs of different military

groups can improve their health outcomes and

support their recovery and reintegration into

society. Future research should continue to

explore these relationships using longitudinal

designs and larger, more diverse samples to

further our understanding of how to best support

the well-being of military personnel worldwide.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of

control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry

Holt & Co.

Bonanno, G.A., Romero, S.A., & Klein, S.I. (2015).

The temporal elements of psychological

resilience: An integrative framework for the

study of individuals, families, and

communities. Psychological Inquiry, 26(2),

139–169.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.992677

Brähler, E., Hinz, A., & Scheer, J. W. (2008). GBB-24.

Der Gießener Beschwerdebogen [GBB-

24. Giessen Complaint List]. Bern,

Switzerland: Hans Huber.

Breslau, N., Peterson, E. L., Kessler, R. C., & Schultz,

L.R. (1999). Short screening scale for DSM-

IV post-traumatic stress disorder. American

Journal of Psychiatry, 156(6), 908–911.

https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.156.6.908

Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007).

Psychometric analysis and refinement of

the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale

(CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item

measure of resilience. Journal of

Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271

Dami, B. E., James, A., Zubairu, D., karick, H., &

Dakwak, S. (2018). Combat exposure and

PTSD among military combatants in north

east Nigeria. Journal of Psychology &

Clinical Psychiatry, 9(4), 400–404.

https://doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2018.09.00558

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr.

(2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five

personality domains. Journal of Research

in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

Javaras, K. N., Williams, M., & Baskin-Sommers, A.

R. (2019). Psychological interventions

potentially useful for increasing

conscientiousness. Personality Disorders:

Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10(1),

13–24.

https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000267

Kang, H., Fischer, I. C.., Vus, V., Chobanian, A.,

Kolyshkina, A., Ponomarenko, L., Esterlis, I.,

& Pietrzak, R. H. (2024). Well-being of

mental health workers during the Russian-

Ukrainian War. Mental Health: Global

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Challenges Journal, 7(1), 41–49.

https://doi.org/10.56508/mhgcj.v7i1.189

Kokun, O. (2024). The stability of mental health

during war: Survey data from Ukraine.

Journal of Loss and Trauma. 1–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2024.2328649

Kokun, O., & Bezverkhyi, O. (2024). Ukrainian

students’ personal re-sources and

resistance to war stress: A cross-sectional

survey. Journal of Loss and Trauma. 1–18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2024.2325084

Kokun, O., Pischko, I., & Lozinska, N. (2022).

Examination of military personnel’s

changed psychological states during

long-term deployment in a war zone.

Anales de Psicología, 38(1), 191–200.

https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.475041

Kokun, O., Pischko, I., & Lozinska, N. (2023). Military

personnel's stress reactivity during pre-

deployment in a war zone. Psychology,

Health & Medicine, 28(8), 2341–2352.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2022.2104882

Maia, A., McIntyre, T., Pereira, M. G., & Ribeiro, E.

(2011). War exposure and post-traumatic

stress as predictors of Portuguese colonial

war veterans' physical health. Anxiety,

Stress, and Coping, 24(3), 309–325.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.52123

Masten, A. S., Lucke, C. M., Nelson, K. M., &

Stallworthy, I. C. (2021). Resilience in

development and psychopathology:

Multisystem perspectives. Annual Review

of Clinical Psychology, 17, 521–549.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-

081219-120307

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of

the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1),

81–90.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.52.1.81

Osorio, C., Jones, N., Jones, E., Robbins, I.,

Wessely, S., & Greenberg, N. (2018).

Combat experiences and their

relationship to post-traumatic stress

disorder symptom clusters in UK military

personnel deployed to Afghanistan.

Behavioral Medicine, 44(2), 131–140.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2017.1288606

Prykhodko I, Matsehora Y, Kryvokon N, Hunbin K,

Kovalchuk O, Antusheva N, & Filonenko L.

(2023). Manifestations of post-traumatic

stress in military personnel after

participating in hostilities in the Russian-

Ukrainian war. European Journal of

Clinical and Experimental Medicine,

21(4), 776–784.

https://doi.org/10.15584/ejcem.2023.4.19

Reuters (2023). U.S. intelligence assesses Ukraine

war has cost Russia 315,000 casualties-

source.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-

intelligence-assesses-ukraine-war-has-cost-

russia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12/

Ringwald, W. R., Nielsen, S. R., Mostajabi, J., Vize C.

E., van den Berg, T., Manuck, S. B.,

Marsland, A. L., & Wright, A. G. C. (2024).

Characterizing stress processes by linking

Big Five personality states, traits, and day-

to-day stressors. Journal of Research in

Personality, 110, 104487.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104487

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995).

Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J.

Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.),

Measures in health psychology: A user’s

portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp.

35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.

Seal, K. H., Bertenthal, D., Miner, C. R., Sen, S., &

Marmar, C. (2007). Bringing the war back

home: mental health disorders among

103,788 US veterans returning from Iraq

and Afghanistan seen at Department of

Veterans Affairs facilities. Archives of

Internal Medicine, 167(5), 476–482.

https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.5.476

Seal, K. H., Metzler, T. J., Gima, K. S., Bertenthal, D.,

Maguen, S., & Marmar, C. R. (2009).

Trends and risk factors for mental health

diagnoses among Iraq and Afghanistan

veterans using Department of Veterans

Affairs health care, 2002–2008. American

Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1651–

1658.

https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.150284

Shen, Y., Arkes, J. A., & Pilgrim, J. D. (2009). The

effects of deployment intensity on post-

traumatic stress disorder: 2002–2006.

Military Medicine, 174(3), 217–223.

https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-03-4307

Shvets, A. V., Horishna, O. V., Deputat, Y. M.,

Rychka, O. V., Zhaldak, A. Y., & Kikh, A. Y.

(2022). Prognostic assessment of the need

for medical rehabilitation among military

officers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

based on the structure of their combat

trauma. Ukrainian Journal of Military

Medicine, 3(3), 110–117.

Slone, M., Shoshani, A., & Lobel, T. (2013). Helping

youth immediately following war

exposure: a randomized controlled trial of

a school-based intervention program. The

Journal of Primary Prevention, 34(5), 293–

307.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0314-3

Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S.,

Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014).

Resilience definitions, theory, and

challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives.

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

European Journal of Psychotraumatology,

5(1), 25338.

https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338

Vus, V., & Esterlis, I. (2022). Support of the

population within the Russian-Ukrainian

war: insider's perspective. Chronic Stress

(Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 6,

24705470221101884.

https://doi.org/10.1177/24705470221101884