Background: There is international agreement that military families (MFs)—active service members, reservists, veterans, and their families—must be resilient to overcome military life adversities. Resilience is defined either as skillsets or as processes implicating multi-systems in a socio-ecological context. While research on resilience-building specific to children and families who face adversity is growing, there is a paucity of evidence on MF-centred resilience-building. Objective: This review describes the evidence on such resilience-building programming and determines if adversity is considered a barrier or facilitator to resilience-building. Methods: This scoping review yielded 4050 peer-reviewed articles from database inception until December 2023, found in 12 databases. Articles were deduplicated, leaving 1317 that were independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Findings: Of these articles, 27 were included; 5 additional articles were also included from other sources. The vast majority of included studies (91%) were conducted in the United States. These 32 articles were organised into categories, including demographics, research methodologies used, resilience program descriptors, and outcomes. Conclusions: Our results reveal that programs on building MF resilience vary widely, often measuring non-resilience health and social outcomes. We provide preliminary insights for MF health and policy. Our review findings will be invaluable for further evidence-based programming that builds resilience in MFs.

Introduction: Following the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health clinicians rapidly shifted service delivery from in-person to digital. This pivot was instrumental in maintaining continuity of care and meeting increased mental health service demands. Many mental health services have continued to be offered via digital delivery. The long-term implications of delivering services via digital media remain unclear and need to be addressed. Objectives: This study aimed to identify current micro (i.e., clinician–patient interactions), meso (i.e., clinician–clinic manager interactions), and macro (i.e., government–policy maker interactions) level issues surrounding the use of digital mental health interventions (DMHI). Such integrated assessments are important for optimizing services to improve treatment outcomes and client satisfaction. Methods: Participants were recruited between January 2022 and April 2023. Quantitative data were collected using a survey informed by the Hexagon Tool. Qualitative data were collected from online semi-structured interviews and focus groups and analyzed using rapid thematic analysis. Results: Survey data were collected from 11 client and 11 clinician participants. Twenty-six community partner participants were interviewed for this study. Client and clinician participants expressed satisfaction with the implementation of DMHI. Community partner participants generally agreed, reporting that such services will play an integral role in mental healthcare moving forward. Community partners shared that certain issues, such as uncertainty surrounding policies and regulations related to digital delivery, must be addressed in the future. Conclusions: Participants in this study supported the use of DMHI despite difficulties implementing these programs, asserting that such services are not a temporary fix but a pivotal cornerstone in the future of mental healthcare service delivery.