Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29615005›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2018

Improving risk prediction accuracy for new soldiers in the U.S. Army by adding self-report survey data to administrative data.

Samantha L Bernecker, Anthony J Rosellini, Matthew K Nock, Wai Tat Chiu, Peter M Gutierrez, Irving Hwang, Thomas E Joiner, James A Naifeh, Nancy A Sampson, Alan M Zaslavsky and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha L BerneckerDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Anthony J RoselliniDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Matthew K NockDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Wai Tat ChiuDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Peter M GutierrezDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Colorado School of Medicine, and Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, CO, USA.
Irving HwangDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Thomas E JoinerDepartment of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
James A NaifehCenter for the Study of Traumatic Stress, Department of Psychiatry, Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Nancy A SampsonDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Alan M ZaslavskyDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Murray B SteinDepartments of Psychiatry and Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Robert J UrsanoCenter for the Study of Traumatic Stress, Department of Psychiatry, Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Ronald C KesslerDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. kessler@hcp.med.harvard.edu.
Harvard University · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USBoston University · USFlorida State University · USUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

Modifiable Risk and Protective Factors for Suicidal Behaviors in the US ArmyU01MH087981 · NIMH · HENRY M. JACKSON FDN FOR THE ADV MIL/MED · PI STEIN, MURRAY B., URSANO, ROBERT J. · 2009 to 2013
$65.0M
Medical Research and Materiel Command W81XWH-12-2-0113Medical Research and Materiel Command W81XWH-13-1-0037NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH087981NIMH NIH HHS U01MH087981U.S. Department of Defense HU0001-15-2-0004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh rates of mental disorders, suicidality, and interpersonal violence early in the military career have raised interest in implementing preventive interventions with high-risk new enlistees. The Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (STARRS) developed risk-targeting systems for these outcomes based on machine learning methods using administrative data predictors. However, administrative data omit many risk factors, raising the question whether risk targeting could be improved by adding self-report survey data to prediction models. If so, the Army may gain from routinely administering surveys that assess additional risk factors.

methodsThe STARRS New Soldier Survey was administered to 21,790 Regular Army soldiers who agreed to have survey data linked to administrative records. As reported previously, machine learning models using administrative data as predictors found that small proportions of high-risk soldiers accounted for high proportions of negative outcomes. Other machine learning models using self-report survey data as predictors were developed previously for three of these outcomes: major physical violence and sexual violence perpetration among men and sexual violence victimization among women. Here we examined the extent to which this survey information increases prediction accuracy, over models based solely on administrative data, for those three outcomes. We used discrete-time survival analysis to estimate a series of models predicting first occurrence, assessing how model fit improved and concentration of risk increased when adding the predicted risk score based on survey data to the predicted risk score based on administrative data.

resultsThe addition of survey data improved prediction significantly for all outcomes. In the most extreme case, the percentage of reported sexual violence victimization among the 5% of female soldiers with highest predicted risk increased from 17.5% using only administrative predictors to 29.4% adding survey predictors, a 67.9% proportional increase in prediction accuracy. Other proportional increases in concentration of risk ranged from 4.8% to 49.5% (median = 26.0%).

conclusionsData from an ongoing New Soldier Survey could substantially improve accuracy of risk models compared to models based exclusively on administrative predictors. Depending upon the characteristics of interventions used, the increase in targeting accuracy from survey data might offset survey administration costs.

Indexed as

AdultCrime VictimsFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMilitary PersonnelResearch DesignRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSelf ReportSex OffensesSuicide PreventionUnited StatesYoung AdultArmyMilitaryPredictive modelingRisk assessmentSexual assaultViolence

Identifiers

PMID29615005
PMCPMC5883887
OpenAlexW2803405969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.