MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283829773 · doi:10.2196/39402

Feasibility and Acceptability of Recruitment and Retention in a Remote Trial of Gatekeeper Training for Military Veterans

2022· article· en· W4283829773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alan R. Teo, Aaron A. Call, Elizabeth R. Hooker, Clarissa Fong, Elizabeth Karras, Steven K. Dobscha

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVeterans AffairsMedicineMilitary serviceService memberRandomized controlled trialSocial mediaMilitary personnelPsychologyNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background SAVE (Signs; Ask; Validate; Encourage) is a brief gatekeeper training designed to teach lay individuals how to identify and assist military veterans at risk for suicide. SAVE can be delivered asynchronously using a web-based video format, but no studies of the effectiveness of SAVE exist. Objective The aim of this project was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of recruitment and retention in a remote trial of SAVE. Methods We conducted a social media campaign using sponsored Facebook posts (ads) to recruit veterans, including those outside the Veterans Affairs network of care, and their loved ones. Participants (N=214) were randomized to SAVE or a sham video training unrelated to suicide prevention and followed for 6 months. We also conducted qualitative interviews with a subgroup (n=15) and used a mixed methods framework to integrate findings. Results At baseline, most participants were a family member or friend of a veteran (146/214, 68.2%), and 47.7% (102/214) knew at least one veteran or service member who had died by suicide. Across both study arms, 73.8% (158/214) responded to at least 3 of 6 follow-up surveys and 72.4% (155/214) completed follow-up at 6 months. Themes from interviews indicated the following three barriers to study participation: generic posts, copy (ad text) referring to “research,” and Facebook as a platform. There were 5 facilitators to participation: audience segmentation focused on veterans’ family members and friends, an urgent call to action to help a veteran, prior exposure to suicide, emphasizing the benefits of receiving training, and using a university as the campaign messenger. Conclusions A social media campaign was a feasible and acceptable approach to recruiting and retaining participants—especially the loved ones of veterans with prior exposure to suicide—for a fully remote trial of SAVE gatekeeper training. Several campaign strategies may be applied to further promote remote study participation in this population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04565951; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04565951 Conflicts of Interest None declared.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.690
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.133 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207