MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407350241 · doi:10.2196/67637

Evaluating the Acceptability of a Brief Web-Based Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Among US Military Cadets: Mixed Methods Formative Evaluation

2025· article· en· W4407350241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily A. Schmied, Lauren M Hurtado, Cynthia M. Simon-Arndt, Richard H. Moyer, Mark B. Reed, Shannon M. Blakey, Marni L. Kan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintFormative assessmentPsychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyComputer securityMedicineComputer sciencePedagogyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As alcohol misuse remains pervasive within the military, evidence-based prevention programs that are feasible to implement and appropriately tailored to meet the needs and norms of military personnel are critically needed. Further, programs that target future military leaders, such as trainees, recruits, and cadets, may be especially impactful. eCHECKUP TO GO is an online, evidence-based brief alcohol intervention designed to reduce alcohol misuse through education and personalized feedback that may be suitable for military trainees. However, because it was developed for civilian students, efforts to adapt the content for military settings are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of a military version of eCHECKUP TO GO, tailored to include military-specific terminology and alcohol use statistics. METHODS: US Air Force Academy cadets were recruited to participate in a single-arm, mixed methods study. Following completion of eCHECKUP TO GO, participants completed a survey that assessed satisfaction with specific aspects of the user experience, including ease of use, design, and relevance of the information and personalized feedback (range: 1 [strongly disagree] to 7 [strongly agree]). A subset of cadets also participated in a focus group to expound on the survey responses. RESULTS: Survey participants included 22 cadets (54.5% male; mean [M] age 19.6 years, SD 1.8). Six cadets (27.2%) also participated in the focus group. Participants were satisfied with the program overall (M 5.8, SD 0.9) and gave the highest ratings to ease of use (M 6.6, SD 0.7), site design (M 6.5, SD 0.6), and site interactivity (M 6.4, SD 1.0). Items pertaining to tailoring, relevance, and amount of content specific to cadets scored lowest (M 5.8, SD 1.4; M 5.6, SD 1.4; M 5.5, SD 1.5, respectively). Most (68.2%) said they would act upon the information they were provided. Focus group participants made suggestions for improved tailoring, such as increasing content on social aspects of drinking and military-specific risks of alcohol misuse (eg, Uniform Code of Military Justice violations). CONCLUSIONS: Although acceptability of eCHECKUP TO GO was high, continued efforts are needed to ensure the content accurately reflects the experiences of cadets. Researchers who design military health promotion interventions need to consider the varied contexts within the force and rigorously evaluate the acceptability of all content before implementation.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.192
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→