Feasibility and Acceptability of Recruitment and Retention in a Remote Trial of Gatekeeper Training for Military Veterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.114 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".