104 5 CHAPTER 5 (6). Therefore, several stigma related statements were included. All the statements were assessed by several people working in the military, to assure the questions were appropriate for the military context. The statements were adjusted according to their feedback. Participants were asked to indicate on a 4-point scale to what extent they agreed with the statements, ranging from completely disagree to completely agree. Personnel without MHI were asked additional questions about their needs regarding disclosure if they would develop MHI in the future. Based on findings from the earlier qualitative study (6), they were given seven options (e.g. a supervisor who shows understanding for MHI) and were asked to rate these on a 4-point scale ranging from ‘Not at all’ to ‘Very much’. Please see the results section for a full overview of the assessed needs. (Previous) experience Familiarity Participants were asked about MHI in their surroundings using an adaptation of the Level of Contact Report (26), following earlier research (25, 27). The total score was used. Previous experience Participants were asked whether they had previous experience, and/or seen experiences of others, with disclosure to a supervisor. If yes, they were asked whether this experience was positive or negative. Work context Unit cohesion A three-item measure was used for perceived unit cohesion (28). For example ‘the members of my unit are cooperative with each other’. Items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘Completely-disagree’ to ‘Completely-agree’. Mean scores were used. Participants with MHI were asked about unit cohesion at the time they experienced MHI (28). Relationship supervisor A six-item measure for the relationship with the supervisor from the Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (QEEW) was used. This questionnaire is the most used and validated questionnaire for work experiences in the Netherlands (29). Items were measured on a 4-point scale with answer categories ‘Always’, ‘Often’, ‘Sometimes’ and ‘Never’. Mean scores were used, with higher scores indicating better relationship quality. Participants with MHI were asked about the relationship at the time they experienced MHI.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw