Table 1.

Included studies sample characteristics, methods of assessment, and quality ratings

Study	Design	N	Males (%)	Child ethnicity (%)	Child age or school grade	Outcomes assessed	Quality rating
Acion et al. [28]	Cross-sectional	Civilian 57,637	49.3	85.9	6th, 8th, 11th grade	Alcohol/drug use in last 30 days	Good
		Deployed 1758
Barnes et al. [24]	Longitudinal	Civilian 53	51.7	25.6	M 15.8 years (SD 1.1)	Stress, PTSD	Good
		Military parent 59
		Deployed 21
Cederbaum et al. [31]a	Cross-sectional	Civilian 12,385	48.1	28.3	7th, 9th, 11th grade	Suicidal ideation, positive affect, depression	Fair
		Military parent 1305
		Military sibling 609
Gilreath et al. [15]a	Cross-sectional	Civilian 12,555	47.9	28.2	7th, 9th, 11th grade	Alcohol/drug use in last 30 days	Good
		Military parent 1338
		Military sibling 619
Gilreath et al. [29]a	Cross-sectional	Civilian 283,593	49.1	23.5	9–11th grade	Suicidal ideation	Good
		Military parent 27,547
Reed et al. [14]b	Cross-sectional	Civilian 8237	57.2	N/A	8th, 10th, 12th grade	Quality of life, depression, suicidal ideation	Good
		Military parent 1216
		Deployed 557
Reed et al. [26]b	Cross-sectional	Civilian 9978	56.0	60.5	8th, 10th, 12th grade	Binge drinking over last 2 weeks, drug use in last 30 days, externalising behaviour	Good
		Military parent 1210
		Deployed 554
Reinhardt et al. [30]	Cross-sectional	Civilian 3370	49.6	36.0	9–12th grade	Externalising behaviour	Good
		Military parent 539
Sullivan et al. [27]a	Cross-sectional	Civilian 634,029	49.6	21.4	7th, 9th, 11th grade	Externalising behaviour, alcohol/drug use in last 30 days	Good
		Military parent 54,684

N = total number of child participants. Child ethnicity is reported as percentage Caucasian children. Males = the percentage of male children in the study. Military parent/sibling = child reports having a primary caregiver or sibling in the armed forces. Deployed = child reports that parent/sibling has been deployed to a combat zone. N/A not available, M mean, SD standard deviation. Adjustment difficulties measured = type of child psychological difficulty assessed by the study and included in the analysis. Quality rating score: studies meeting criteria for items three, eleven and fourteen on the NIH [25] study quality checklist received a score of ‘good.’ A study that met criteria on two of three items received a quality rating score of ‘fair.’ A study that met one or none of these items received a score of ‘poor.’ All studies assessed child wellbeing using self-report questionnaires

^aData from the state-wide California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) was used. Cederbaum et al. [31] reported CHKS data from children recruited during 2011. Gilreath et al. [15] reported CHKS data from a sub-sample of children recruited during February–March 2011 from schools in southern California. Gilreath et al. [29] used CHKS data from children recruited between 2012 and 2013. Sullivan et al. [27] reported CHKS data collected during March–April 2013

^bData from the Washington State 2008 Healthy Youth Survey (HYS) was used. Reed et al. [14] reported on HYS data collected in 2008, with data regarding suicidal ideation and poor quality of life used for the present study. Reed et al. [26] reported HYS data collected in 2008 with data regarding child violent behaviour and substance use used for the present study