Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32242289›Full record

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.

Amanda R Start, Rachel M Amiya, Alexis C Dixon, Thomas W Britt, Robin L Toblin, Amy B Adler

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Engage: A bystander intervention training for U.S. Army soldiers.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amanda R StartCenter for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9290-5522
Rachel M AmiyaCenter for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.
Alexis C DixonCenter for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.
Thomas W BrittCenter for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.
Robin L ToblinCenter for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.
Amy B AdlerCenter for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA. amy.b.adler.civ@mail.mil.
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research · USClemson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Help-Seeking BehaviorMental HealthSocial SupportAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMilitary PersonnelSocial StigmaSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung AdultBarriers to careMental health treatmentMilitary personnelSocial supportStigmaTreatment seeking

Identifiers

PMID32242289
OpenAlexW3014786682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.