Trial Outcomes & Findings for Develop and Validation of Measurement-Based Transition Assistance (NCT NCT05384171)

Potential participants were recruited through invitations via mail between November 2022 and December 2022. 500 invitations were mailed (25 were undeliverable). Forty-six veterans accessed the study website URL and consented to participate.

Potential participants were randomly assigned to a group prior to mailing (250 to Intervention Group arm and 250 to Active Control Group arm)

Not all participants provided data related to their age

Participation in the study will be evaluated to assess feasibility of the study procedures. To determine feasibility, at the end of data collection the investigators will calculate the following: 1. Percentage of veterans who enroll in the study out of those invited (baseline; T1) 2. Percentage of veterans who complete both T1 and T2 surveys (baseline \[T1\] and three-month follow-up \[T2\] data) 3. Percentage of veterans who access the MBTA assessment (baseline \[T1\] for intervention group; three-month follow-up \[T2\] for active control group) 4. Percentage of veterans who complete the MBTA assessment (baseline \[T1\] for intervention group; three-month follow-up \[T2\] for active control group) 5. Percentage of veterans who review the personalized well-being report (baseline \[T1\] for intervention group; three-month follow-up \[T2\] for active control group)

For the intervention group at the baseline assessment (T1), the investigators assessed satisfaction with the MBTA tool with items developed specifically for this pilot study. T1 (baseline) was the only timeframe these questions were administered for this group). The investigators asked open-ended questions such as: What did you like about the tool? What did you not like about the tool? Is there anything you would change about the tool?

For the active control group, they were asked at the three-month follow-up (T2) their satisfaction with the MBTA tool with items developed specifically for this pilot study. T2 (three-month follow-up) was the only timeframe these questions were administered for this group). The investigators asked open-ended questions such as: What did you like about the tool? What did you not like about the tool? Is there anything you would change about the tool?

The investigators administered the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA; DiClemente et al., 2004) to measure movement in the stages of change. Questions in the URICA were slightly modified to focus on well-being. To score the URICA, the investigators will calculate a readiness to change score based on the four stages of change (precontemplation, contemplation, action, and maintenance). The investigators will calculate means for precontemplation responses, contemplation responses, action responses and maintenance responses and subtract the mean from the precontemplation score from the summation of the other three stages. This sum score represents an individual's readiness to change. Possible readiness to change scores range from -2 to +14, with higher scores indicating higher levels of readiness to change.

The investigators administered the Stages Algorithm (DiClemente et al., 1991) to measure movement in the stages of change from baseline to the three-month follow-up. Questions were modified slightly to assess for willingness to work on resolving problems or challenges related to areas of well-being (i.e., mental health/emotional well-being, physical health, vocation, social life, and finances). This measure is designed as a decision tree based on reported challenges, and is scored based on where participants fall within the decision tree. It classifies participants according to the following stages of change: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance stages.

The investigators used Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire (Ajzen, 1991) to assess movement from baseline to the three-month follow-up in the constructs from the theory of planned behavior (intention, attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control). Questions were slightly modified to focus on well-being. The investigators scored each of the aforementioned constructs/subscales separately. For each subscale, the investigators calculated the the mean of the items. Scores could range from 1 to 7 with higher scores indicating a more positive response.

The investigators assessed movement in support seeking perceptions from baseline (T1) to the three-month follow-up (T2) with the Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help - Short Form scale (Picco et al., 2016). Questions were slightly modified to focus on seeking support to address well-being challenges and problems. To calculate a total score, items 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10 were reverse scored. Scores were then summed together, with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward seeking professional help. Scores could range range for 0-30.

For the intervention group, the investigators assessed support seeking behavior with items developed specifically for this pilot study at T2 (three-month follow-up). Questions asked about the extent to which the tool has helped increase awareness about well-being related challenges or problems, the extent to which the tool has helped encourage improving well-being related problems or challenges, and which types of resources the participant has used since using the tool. Items were examined separately. A response of moderately or higher on the two Likert scale items was considered a positive response.