ArticleResearch square2023
Feasibility of a prospective, longitudinal study of resilience among young military recruits with embedded laboratory sub-study: the ARMOR pilot trial.
Article in Research square, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Multilevel, longitudinal studies are integral to resilience research; however, they are costly and present unique methodological challenges. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility of study methods (recruitment, retention, data collection) for a large-scale prospective, longitudinal study of resilience among young National Guard recruits. Methods: This feasibility trial used a pre-test/post-test design with embedded laboratory sub-study. Participants were young military recruits who had recently enlisted in the Army National Guard and had not yet shipped to Basic Combat Training (BCT). Recruitment and baseline data collection (Time 1), which included a battery of computerized self-report measures and neurocognitive tests, were conducted at local armories. Participants completed an online follow-up (Time 2) survey outside of drill training after returning from BCT. A subset of participants was recruited to complete extensive laboratory procedures pre-and post-BCT, including clinical interview, additional self-report measures, and performance on a series of neurobehavioral tasks during electroencephalogram recordings and, at pre-BCT only, magnetic resonances imaging. Feasibility outcomes assessed our ability to recruit, retain, and collect data from participants. Analysis of outcomes was based on descriptive statistics and evaluation of the feasibility of the larger study was based on pre-determined go/no go progression criteria. Results: All pre-determined progression criteria were met. A total of 102 (97.1%) of eligible military service members consented to participate. Of these, 73 (73.7%) completed the Time 2 survey. Of the 24 participants approached, 14 agreed to participate in the laboratory sub-study, 13 completed follow-up laboratory visits. Overall, completion of online surveys and laboratory tasks was excellent. However, participants had difficulties completing online surveys during BCT and the computerized neurocognitive testing battery at Time 2. Conclusions: Study methods were feasible, and all predetermined criteria for progression to the large-scale longitudinal study were met. Some minor protocol adaptations were identified from this feasibility study. Lessons learned and recommendations for future research are discussed.
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.