RESUMO
As part of an Army pilot program, mandatory annual wellness checks were initiated to introduce individuals to counseling and to support psychological resilience and thriving. The program was evaluated using a cross-sectional survey completed by 7,831 soldiers. Findings revealed that about half of soldiers who reported a wellness check rated the check at least moderately helpful in their professional and personal lives. Participants receiving a wellness check reported being more likely to report willingness to seek help if they were to have mental health problems and to report higher levels of resilience and thriving even after controlling for rank, age, education, months in the unit, and trait negative affect. Participants were also less likely to report stigma-related concerns compared to those who had not received a wellness check. Consistent with theory on the common factors in counseling and the contextual model of psychotherapy (Laska et al., 2014), feeling listened to and learning new skills partially mediated the association between perceived wellness check usefulness and study outcomes, although acquiring a new perspective about problems did not. While not a randomized trial, this evaluation suggests that wellness checks are associated with programmatic goals: improved attitudes toward care seeking, resilience, and thriving. Future work should consider ways to ensure counselors address therapeutic common factors and should use a randomized, longitudinal design. Study findings have implications for implementing programs like wellness checks for military personnel and others working in high-stress occupations like first responders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to pilot the iCOVER curriculum-a training product designed to teach service members how to recognize and respond to acute stress reactions (ASRs) using a simple, 6-step procedure, iCOVER. Three goals guided the pilot: (a) assess training acceptability, (b) assess impact of training on knowledge and performance of the iCOVER procedure, and (c) explore the effects of in-person and computer-simulated practical exercises. METHOD: Six military squads (N = 66) were randomly assigned to 3 conditions: iCOVER Standard (iCOVER instruction with an in-person practical exercise), iCOVER Tech (iCOVER instruction with a computer-simulated practical exercise), or Control (no iCOVER instruction). Squads in the iCOVER conditions received iCOVER instruction, completed a knowledge test and practical exercise to which they were assigned (i.e., Standard or Tech), demonstrated their iCOVER skills in live-action scenarios, and reported their perceptions of the training. RESULTS: iCOVER training was acceptable to most participants and associated with improved knowledge about iCOVER (Mpre = 3.33 vs. Mpost = 5.15; t[42] = -7.61, p < .001, d = 1.41); iCOVER Standard resulted in more iCOVER behaviors during a live-action scenario compared with the other conditions, F(2, 35) = 13.36, p < .001, η2 = 0.43. Compared with iCOVER Tech, iCOVER Standard had greater acceptability and resulted in better performance of iCOVER. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first U.S. demonstration of a training program designed to address ASRs during high-risk operations and offers a potential way ahead for preparing military teams to manage ASRs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
