MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392794199 · doi:10.1080/08995605.2024.2324647

Optimizing military mental health and stress resilience training through the lens of trainee preferences: A conjoint analysis approach

2024· article· en· W4392794199 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Callista Forchuk, Ilyana Kocha, Joshua A. Granek, Kylie S. Dempster, William Younger, Dominic Gargala, Rachel A. Plouffe, Suzanne Bailey, Kim Guest, J. Don Richardson, Anthony Nazarov

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Armed ForcesDepartment of National DefenceWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareDefence Research and Development CanadaLawson Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research
KeywordsApplied psychologyMental healthStressorPsychologyRelevance (law)Conjoint analysisPsychological resiliencePreferenceTraining (meteorology)Medical educationTrainerClinical psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective mental health and stress resilience (MHSR) training is essential in military populations given their exposure to operational stressors. The scarcity of empirical evidence supporting the benefits of these programs emphasizes the need for research dedicated to program optimization. This paper aims to identify the relative importance of MHSR training attributes preferred by military members. Conjoint analysis (CA), an experimental method used to prioritize end-user preferences for product feature development, was conducted using an online survey with 567 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel. Participants made a series of choices between hypothetical MHSR training options that were systematically varied across seven training attributes. Each training attribute consisted of 3-4 variations in the nature of the attribute or its intensity. Participants also completed questions on health beliefs, mental health and previous MHSR training experiences, and demographics, to assess whether preferences varied by individual characteristics. CA demonstrated that instructor type, leadership buy-in, degree of skills practice, and content relevance/applicability were attributes of highest and relatively equal importance. This was followed by degree of accessible supplemental content. Lowest importance was placed on degree of behavioral nudging and demographic similarity between the trainee and trainer. Sociodemographic factors were not associated with MHSR training preferences. Programs that incorporate expert-led instruction, demonstrate leadership buy-in, embed practical applications within simulated stress environments, and provide a digitally-accessible platform to augment training may be well-received among military members. Understanding and accommodating personal preferences when designing MHSR training programs may increase relevance, foster acceptance and trust, and support sustained engagement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary PsychologySame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207