Supporting servicemembers and veterans during their transition to civilian life using certified sponsors: A three-arm randomized controlled trial.
Supporting servicemembers and veterans during their transition to civilian life using certified sponsors: A three-arm randomized controlled trial.
复制标题
使用经过认证的赞助商支持现役军人和退伍军人过渡到平民生活：一项三组随机对照试验。
DOI：
10.1037/ser0000764
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Goodman,Marianne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Geraci,JosephC;Dichiara,Ariana;Greene,Ashley;Gromatsky,Molly;Finley,ErinP;Kilby,Daniel;Frankfurt,Sheila;Edwards,EmilyR;SolomonKurz,A;Sokol,Yosef;Sullivan,SarahR;Mobbs,Meaghan;Seim,RichardW;Goodman,Marianne
过渡军人和退伍军人（TSMV）在重新融入平民生活的过程中面临困难，包括就业挑战，社会关系不良以及自杀风险增加。为了满足这一高风险人群的需要，国家举措利用了社区干预措施。作者进行了一项三臂随机对照试验（n= 200），以评估两种基于社区的干预措施。第一个是红、白色和蓝色团队（RWB），通过体育/社会活动将TSMV与他们的社区联系起来。第二个是“服务赞助计划”，为在重返社会过程中提供支持的TSMV提供一对一的认证赞助人。在基线、3、6和12个月时评估TSMV。主要假设没有得到支持，因为与等待名单相比，随机分配到两个基于社区的干预措施（Arm-2/RWB和Arm-3/RWB+ ETS-SP）的参与者的重返社会困难和社会支持没有显著差异，当来自单独的手臂的数据被折叠并合并时。结果确实支持次要假设，因为与Arm-2/RWB相比，Arm-3/RWB+ ETS-SP在12个月内的重返社会困难较少，并且最初获得了更多的社会支持，这表明与赞助商一起加强干预优于单独参与基于社区的干预。总的来说，结果显示，在本研究中实施和研究的以社区为基础的干预措施存在一些局限性。作者确定了可能导致主要假设无效结果的因素，这些因素可以在未来的研究中加以解决，例如解决TSMV的独特需求，在退伍前将TSMV纳入干预措施，测量和提高参与水平，以及根据风险水平提供阶梯式护理干预措施。
Transitioning servicemembers and veterans (TSMVs) face difficulties throughout their reintegration to civilian life, including challenges with employment, poor social connection, and elevated risk for suicide. To meet the needs of this high-risk population, national initiatives have leveraged community-based interventions. Authors conducted a three-arm randomized controlled trial (n= 200) to evaluate two community-based interventions. The first, Team Red, White, and Blue (RWB), connects TSMVs to their community through physical/social activities. The second, Expiration Term of Service Sponsorship Program (ETS-SP) provides one-on-one certified sponsors to TSMVs who provide support during the reintegration process. TSMVs were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary hypothesis was not supported as reintegration difficulties and social support were not significantly different for participants randomly assigned to the two community-based interventions (Arm-2/RWB and Arm-3/RWB+ ETS-SP), when the data from the separate arms were collapsed and combined, compared to the waitlist. The results did support the secondary hypothesis as Arm-3/RWB+ ETS-SP had less reintegration difficulties over 12 months and initially had more social support compared to Arm-2/RWB, which suggest that augmenting interventions with sponsors outperforms participation in community-based interventions alone. Overall, the results show some limitations of the studied community-based interventions, as implemented and researched within this study. The authors identified factors that may have contributed to the null findings for the primary hypothesis, which can be addressed in future studies, such as addressing the unique needs of TSMVs, enrolling TSMVs into interventions prior to military discharge, measuring and improving participation levels, and providing stepped-care interventions based on risk levels.