Measurement-Based Transition Assistance (MBTA): Evaluating the Promise of a Web-Based Approach to Promote Veterans' Support Seeking
Phase: NA
Conditions: Well-being
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measurement-Based Transition Assistance (MBTA): Evaluating the Promise of a Web-Based Approach 
to Promote Veterans' Support Seeking 
NCT05384171 
2/27/2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

1 
 
PROTOCOL 
 
Overview. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared a prototype of MBTA to aa 
active control condition. We collected data at baseline and at follow-up (three-months later). Participants in the 
active control condition did not receive the MBTA prototype until the follow-up assessment. Aims of the study 
were to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the MBTA prototype in 
promoting Veterans’ support-seeking in a sample of recently separated Veterans. Findings will be used to guide 
further modifications to MBTA, as this pilot study used a prototype of MBTA. 
 
Sampling and Data Collection Method. We drew participants from a sampling frame of recently separated 
Veterans identified from the VA/DoD Identity Repository (VADIR). VADIR maintains automated files on all 
former military personnel with the necessary demographic and military background information to support the 
study. Inclusion criteria was: (1) having separated from active duty military service within the past year but not 
the past three months (for whom not enough time may have gone by to adequately assess readjustment 
challenges); (2) having a postal address in the U.S; (3) having access to the internet; and (4) having an 
honorable discharge from the military. We sent 500 initial invitations to potential participants, with the goal of 
obtaining a sample of 106 Veterans at baseline. Twenty-five invitations were undeliverable. We applied a 
modification of the Dillman mail survey. Specifically, a VA-approved vendor mailed an invitation letter to 
potential participants, along with information about how to complete the study at a secure website. Veterans 
were randomly assigned to the intervention or active control condition prior to mailing. Consistent with 
Dillman’s recommendation for repeated contacts, a reminder letter was mailed, followed by a second reminder 
letter, and then a final reminder letter at the first (T1; baseline) and second (T2; three-month follow-up) wave of 
data collection. We sent a final mailing with a monetary incentive in the form of a $25 Amazon gift card to 
Veterans who completed T1 (baseline) and increased the incentive to $50 at T2 (three-month follow-up). The 
informed consent process was administered electronically. Informed consent elements were displayed on the 
screen along with a button that potential participants could select to consent to participate. Participants had the 
option to print the page and/or request a copy from the research team. A total of 43 Veterans elected to 
participate in this study and provided data at baseline. 
 
Intervention Approach. This MBTA prototype required Veterans to complete a 6-8 minute online assessment 
that measured areas of unmet well-being and mental health needs, after which they received individualized 
feedback on areas of unmet need, along with tailored recommendations for relevant programs, services, and 
supports. Veterans assigned to the intervention condition completed MBTA at T1 (baseline); Veterans in the 
active control condition had the opportunity to complete MBTA at T2 (three-month follow-up). Drawing on 
recommendations from the feedback-informed treatment (FIT) literature, MBTA feedback was provided via a 
brief, easy-to-read infographic that included recommendations for relevant resources. The research team 
generated a list of vetted resources that were free to use and nationally available prior to study. Relevant context 
was provided to normalize readjustment challenges and feedback was framed in terms of response formats 
rather than peer comparisons. For example, within the domain of financial satisfaction Veterans received the 
feedback that they indicated not being satisfied with their finances on average, rather than that they are less 
satisfied than their peers. Because the report was provided online it was possible to present information in an 
easily digestible manner, for example, by limiting the amount of information presented on each page and 
providing feedback in tabs rather than a list-based format. We also offered Veterans the opportunity to 
download a printable version of the report for future use. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

2 
 
 
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PLAN  
 
For primary outcome #1, we generated frequency statistics. Primary analyses #2 and #3 involved 
evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of the tool (i.e., primary outcomes labeled as satisfaction of the 
tool) through qualitative data analysis of open-ended questions, specifically rapid content analysis. 
Unfortunately, the clincialtrials.gov platform does not allow reporting on these types of analyses. Thus, 
the primary analyses that are presented here reflect only a subset of the analyses that were the focus of 
this study. We provided counts of themes generated from our qualitative data analysis.  
 
For our secondary outcomes, specifically #1, #3, and #4, ANCOVA models were run. Baseline scores of the 
construct of interest and group status (intervention or active control) were entered as the independent variables 
and follow-up scores of the construct of interest was entered as the dependent variable. We also found 
significant age differences between the intervention and active control group, and differences among constructs 
of interest at baseline by age, so age was also entered in the models as a covariate. Due to the small sample 
size of this pilot study, we encourage readers to focus on the magnitude of the effect that are provided in 
the results, specifically partial eta-squared values: η2 = 0.01 indicate a small effect; η2 = 0.06 indicate a 
medium effect; η2 = 0.14 indicate a large effect. This study was not powered to detect statistically 
significant differences, although this information is presented due to clinicaltrial.gov requirements. 
 
For our secondary outcome #2, frequency statistics are reported. Participants who did not report 
challenges within a domain could not be categorized into a stage of change; therefore, our sample size for 
these analyses are smaller than the other secondary outcomes. Due to the smaller than expected sample 
size and because chi-square tests are sensitive to sample size, we elected to report descriptive information 
only for this outcome. We examined the subset of participants that reported challenges within a domain at 
baseline and then examined if they moved forward in their stages of change/were taking action to address these 
challenges by the three month-follow-up.  
 
For our secondary outcome #5, we generated frequency statistics. Specifically, the number of participants 
that reported the MBTA prototype increased their awareness, encouraged them to improve their well-being, and 
if the Veteran reported using a resource/service. For the specific types of services used, frequency statistics 
were limited to the subset of Veterans that reported using a resource/service between baseline and follow-up.