Table 2.
Assessing R2MR efficacy at the 1st follow up
| Outcomes | Difference between the intervention and control group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimatesa | Cohen’s d | p-value | |
| Psychological functioning | |||
| K-10 total score | −0.01 | – | 0.98 |
| SUDS score | 0.31 | – | 0.78 |
| GAD total score | −0.10 | – | 0.66 |
| PHQ-9 total score | − 0.03 | – | 0.89 |
| Resilience (CD-RISC) total score | −0.14 | – | 0.54 |
| Attitude (MHSU) | |||
| Instrumental attitude | 0.09 | – | 0.12 |
| Affective attitude | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.08 |
| Intention | −0.01 | – | 0.82 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
| Control | 0.04 | – | 0.54 |
| Subjective norms | 0.01 | – | 0.79 |
| Overall | 0.06 | – | 0.16 |
aR2MR efficacy was assessed by the difference in the least squares means between the intervention and control group. The least squares means were calculated with the adjustment for baseline outcome, age, gender, ethnicity, education, self-reported physical health status, self-reported mental health status, K-10 score, SUDS score, GAD score, PhQ-9 score, resilience score, Shipley score, and social desirability score, platoon level mean Shipley score, platoon level mean social desirability score, and recourse rate. In addition, the calculation used inverse-probability-of-attrition-weights to account for the potential bias due to differential attrition