Trial reportPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2020
LINKS Training and Unit Support for Mental Health: a Group-randomized Effectiveness Trial.
Trial report in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engage: A bystander intervention training for U.S. Army soldiers.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2026Trial
- Predicting well-being among military health care workers: The role of self-care and leadership.Journal of military, veteran and family health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The LINKS curriculum, adapted from Britt et al. (2018a), was designed to improve unit climate, knowledge, and attitudes about mental health treatment seeking in military personnel. The present study extends this research by examining implementation options, comparing the effectiveness of LINKS to an active control condition with training delivered by non-experts and comparing modules that varied in training length. Eight Army platoons were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) 1-h Active Control, (2) 2-h Active Control, (3) 1-h LINKS, or (4) 2-h LINKS. Two platoons were assigned to each condition. Surveys were administered at pre-training (T1), post-training (T2), and 3 months later (T3). Eighty-four participants completed all study phases. Regardless of training content, participants receiving the 2-h modules reported greater training acceptability than those receiving the 1-h modules. At T3, participants in the LINKS conditions reported more mental health knowledge than participants in the Active Control conditions. Sustained effects were also observed on a number of treatment barriers and facilitators, with the LINKS conditions generally leading to better outcomes. At T3, 2-h LINKS condition participants reported receiving more mental health treatment relative to the other conditions. Findings suggest that LINKS can be effectively delivered by non-expert trainers, is a viable intervention for targeting mental health treatment-seeking, and is optimally packaged in a 2-h module. The training might benefit from additional leadership training efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.