Many federal programs aimed at preventing psychological problems in military service members and their families have not been evaluated correctly to determine if they are working and are not supported by science, a new report commissioned by the Defense Department says.

"A lot of their programs don't have any good data behind them," said Kenneth Warner, a professor of public health at the University of Michigan who led the Institute of Medicine committee that produced the report. "We remain uncertain about which approaches work and which ones are ineffective."

The 291-page report was especially critical of the Pentagon's biggest and costliest prevention program, known as Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness, which is used throughout the Army.

Based on the principles of positive psychology, it includes training in assertiveness, negotiation and coping strategies such as maintaining an optimistic outlook on life. About 900,000 soldiers receive the training each year at a cost of $50 million. The program was recently expanded to include families of service members.

The Army has portrayed it as a success based on internal reviews that found that soldiers saw small improvements on some measures of psychological health.

But the medical committee concluded that the gains were not clinically meaningful. The program did not reduce rates post-traumatic stress disorder or depression.

"The effects were so small," Warner said. "The amount of money being spent was so large. It did not look like a meaningful investment."

An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. S. Justin Platt, defended the program, saying that it was not designed to prevent PTSD and depression but rather to improve social, emotional, spiritual, family and physical well-being. He said that the Army stands by its conclusions and that military families found the training effective.

"First-hand testimonies that tell how the program changed their life, saved their marriage or saved the life of a fellow soldier are more powerful than any report," he said in an email.

Although military leaders would have preferred a long-term scientific study before rolling out the program throughout the Army, they had to act quickly and rely on the best available evidence, Platt said.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is exploring the development of implantable probes that may one day help reverse some memory loss caused by brain injury.

The goal of the project, still in early stages, is to treat some of the more than 280,000 troops who have suffered brain injuries since 2000, including in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, is focused on wounded veterans, although some research may benefit others such as seniors with dementia or athletes with brain injuries, said Geoff Ling, a physician and deputy director of DARPA’s Defense Sciences office. It’s still far from certain that such work will result in an anti-memory-loss device. Still, word of the project is creating excitement after more than a decade of failed attempts to develop drugs to treat brain injury and memory loss.

"The way human memory works is one of the great unsolved mysteries," said Andres Lozano, chairman of neurosurgery at the University of Toronto. "This has tremendous value from a basic science aspect. It may have huge implications for patients with disorders affecting memory, including those with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease."

At least 1.7 million people in the United States are diagnosed with memory loss each year, costing the nation’s economy more than $76 billion annually, according to the most recent federal health data. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates it will spend $4.2 billion to care for former troops with brain injuries between fiscal 2013 and 2022.

Medtronic Inc. already sells implants used in deep brain stimulation treatment to reduce some symptoms of Parkinson’s disease and other neurological conditions. Now, DARPA officials hope to build on neuroengineering advances, such as one that helped people with limited motor functions communicate with a device, according to agency documents posted online.

The Pentagon has sought research proposals from companies and organizations, asking for ideas on stimulating brain tissue to help restore memory. If the research pans out, it may attract interest from companies including General Electric and IBM Corp. as well as Medtronic, said Art Caplan, medical ethics director at New York University’s Langone Medical Center and an occasional DARPA adviser.

Federal health regulators have already authorized Medtronic’s implant for sale in the U.S. St. Jude Medical Inc., based in St. Paul, Minn., and Boston Scientific Corp., based in Natick, Mass., sell similar devices overseas and are seeking U.S. approval.

A massive veterans legislative package that would have expanded a host of post-military benefits was sidelined Thursday after Senate Democratic backers failed to find enough support among their Republican colleagues.

A procedural motion to cut off debate and allow the bill to move to a floor vote fell short by four votes, with all but two Republicans voting along party lines. Bill sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, called the defeat a frustrating disappointment and vowed to find a way to guide the measure through Congress this year.

“I thought that maybe, just maybe, the Senate could come together and do the right thing for our veterans,” he told reporters after the vote. “But, no.”

The vote came after three days of debate on the Senate floor — much of it focusing on what topics should be debated. Each day, Sanders implored his colleagues to focus on the veterans bill and avoid offering unrelated amendments.

But Republicans shifted much of the floor focus to new sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, a move opposed by the White House, and continued objections to portions of the Affordable Care Act.

They also criticized plans to pay for the veterans bill with expiring overseas contingency funds, labeling it a budget gimmick that creates more long-term spending without a real offset.

“That is more money we were going to spend that we haven’t spent, that we never had because we were borrowing it, and now we are going to use it to expand this,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., senior Republican on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

Both sides accused the other of attempting to paint their opposition as anti-veteran. Veterans groups, in turn, labeled the fight another Washington embarrassment.

Everyone encouraging US military action in Ukraine should take a huge deep breath. We really don't wanna have to add a U to IAVA.