Table 3.
Assessing R2MR efficacy at the 2nd follow up
| Outcomes | Difference between the intervention and control group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimates | Cohen’s d | p-value | |
| Continuous outcomes a | |||
| Psychological functioning | |||
| K-10 total score | 0.28 | – | 0.55 |
| SUDS score | 1.05 | – | 0.54 |
| GAD total score | 0.07 | – | 0.82 |
| PHQ-9 total score | 0.08 | – | 0.79 |
| Resilience (CD-RISC) total score | −0.31 | – | 0.41 |
| Attitude (MHSU) | |||
| Instrumental attitude | 0.06 | – | 0.37 |
| Affective attitude | 0.10 | – | 0.13 |
| Intention | −0.08 | – | 0.26 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.09 | – | 0.18 |
| Control | 0.03 | – | 0.65 |
| Subjective norms | 0.05 | – | 0.42 |
| Overall | 0.04 | – | 0.46 |
| Mental Health Literacy | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
| TOPS | |||
| Positive/negative thinking | 0.03 | – | 0.56 |
| Imagery | 0.06 | – | 0.32 |
| Goal setting | 0.00 | – | 1.00 |
| Relaxation | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.06 |
| Military Performance | |||
| Force test score at week 8 | 0.24 | – | 0.32 |
| First aid test score | −0.01 | – | 0.98 |
| Weapon test score | −0.50 | – | 0.19 |
| Binary outcomes b | |||
| BMQ graduationc | 0.71 (0.46–1.10) | – | 0.13 |
| Voluntary released | 1.16 (0.67–2.00) | – | 0.60 |
| Help-seeking behavior e | |||
| Chaplain/Nurse/SW/Surgeon | 1.53 (0.95–2.46) | – | 0.08 |
| Other | 0.70 (0.43–1.15) | – | 0.16 |
| None | 0.86 (0.68–1.09) | – | 0.22 |
| Friends | 1.18 (0.92–1.51) | – | 0.20 |
| Family | 1.31 (1.03–1.66) | – | 0.03 |
a R2MR 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
b R2MR efficacy was assessed by the odds ratios contrasting the odds of success in the intervention group to the control group. The odds ratios (95%CI) were calculated from generalized linear mixed model 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
c BMQ graduation success rates were 89.07% in the intervention group and 90.96% in the control group
d Voluntary release rates were 6.26% in the intervention group and 5.59% in the control group
e Percentage of seeking help from Chaplain/Nurse/SW/Surgeon, Other, None, Friends, and Family were 6.68, 3.85, 38.38, 46.60, 54.04% in the intervention group and 3.89, 4.87, 40.19, 44.92, 49.24% in the control group