Survey of Correction Officers Before and After a Targeted Education Campaign: Complete Statistical Analysis

1. Trial at a Glance

This page covers the registry results for Survey of Correction Officers Before and After a Targeted Education Campaign (NCT05451225), a na na study. The primary outcome is Correction Officers' Knowledge at Baseline.

2. Clinical Question

The clinical and implementation question behind the campaign is whether education can support earlier recognition of psychosis and referral within the jail system. The registered primary endpoint, however, describes baseline knowledge and skills rather than a change attributable to the campaign. The record does not report an estimated change, an uncertainty interval, or a statistical test of change. It therefore cannot establish from the registered primary outcome whether knowledge changed after the education campaign.

3. Trial Design

This is a completed study registered as NCT05451225, titled “Survey of Correction Officers Before and After a Targeted Education Campaign.” The official title describes surveys of correction officers in a large jail system in the context of reducing duration of untreated psychosis through early detection. The record lists the study as sequential, with no masking and allocation recorded as NA. It is not a randomized comparison; the record itself cautions that the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison.

The intervention is a behavioral Targeted Educational Campaign for Correction Officers. The campaign was planned for three jails and included print materials and targeted trainings. The educational content was intended to address recognition of selected signs of psychosis, referral to Correctional Health Services, and the effectiveness of early treatment through coordinated specialty care for early psychosis. The description says that referral messaging about the Specialized Early Engagement Support Service would be used in year 2. Messaging was intended to continue in the three jails.

The registry lists enrollment as 451. The study start date is 2020-01-08, primary completion is 2021-03-05, and status is COMPLETED. These registration details do not establish how many officers completed each survey or how observations were paired over time. The record says that only 200 Correction Officers completed the baseline survey and that data exist for only 200 officers at baseline. The number completing a later survey and the procedures for linking surveys across time are not reported in the registry record.

Although the title signals a before-and-after survey framework, the registered primary measure is explicitly at baseline. The record does not describe a randomized control condition or provide a registered analysis comparing pre-campaign and post-campaign outcomes. Accordingly, the design information supports a description of the education campaign and baseline measurement, but not a causal estimate of the campaign's effect.

4. Participant Flow and Accounting

The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.

Before assignment: Correction officers (COs) were recruited at each of the 3 time points, baseline, 6 months and 12 months, but did not overlap (different COs at each time point) so the recruitment information will not report on a total # enrolled on a continuum (i.e., total number at the beginning, and then how many moved on to 6 months and to 12 months).

Baseline

6 Months

12 Months

Analysis population for the primary outcome, as defined in the registry: Only 200 Correction Officers (COs) completed this survey at baseline and therefore data exists for only 200 COs.

5. Baseline Characteristics

The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.

Population: Includes all Correction Officers (COs) that were recruited at all time points (baseline, 6 months and 12 months).

6. Primary Endpoint

The registry lists the primary outcome as Correction Officers' Knowledge at Baseline, measured over Baseline.

The primary endpoint is Correction Officers' knowledge at baseline, measured using the Correction Officers' Behavioral Capability Scale. It is a continuous score with a minimum value of 0 and a maximum value of 10. Higher scores indicate better knowledge about psychosis and therefore a better outcome. The registry identifies the summary measure as the mean and the measure of spread as the standard deviation.

A baseline knowledge measure can describe the starting level of the surveyed officers and provide context for an educational campaign. The scale is intended to capture behavioral capability, described in the record as knowledge and skills. It does not directly measure whether officers made referrals, whether referrals were appropriate, or whether detainees received early treatment. Those are related to the campaign's stated aims, but they are not the registered primary endpoint.

The record reports that only 200 Correction Officers completed the baseline survey. It does not report the baseline mean or standard deviation. It also does not give a primary endpoint estimate of change after the campaign. Without those results, the direction and precision of baseline scores cannot be assessed from the registry record. A score scale's range and interpretation explain what the measure is designed to represent, but do not substitute for observed results.

7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown

8. Statistical Interpretation

9. Statistical Methods Explained

The statistical information in the registry is limited. It identifies the primary outcome as a continuous score summarized by a mean and standard deviation, and describes the study as sequential. It does not report a statistical analysis plan, an estimated treatment effect, a confidence interval, or a hypothesis test. The explanations below are general statistical context, not claims about analyses performed in this study.

What does a mean describe?

General explanation: a mean is a measure of the average score in the observations being analyzed. For a survey scale, it can provide a concise description of the overall score level. The mean alone does not show how scores are distributed, whether observations are clustered, or whether one subgroup differs from another. The registry identifies the mean as the summary measure for the baseline scale but does not report its observed value.

Why report a standard deviation?

General explanation: a standard deviation describes how dispersed individual scores are around their mean. A smaller spread indicates scores are more concentrated near the average, while a larger spread indicates more variability. It is not the same as a confidence interval: the standard deviation describes variation among observations, whereas a confidence interval describes uncertainty about an estimated quantity under a specified analysis. The baseline standard deviation is not reported in the registry record.

What would a confidence interval add?

General explanation: a confidence interval gives a range of values compatible with an estimate under the assumptions of the statistical method. It communicates precision as well as direction and magnitude. A narrow interval indicates greater precision than a wide interval, although interpretation also depends on the outcome and the question being asked. No confidence interval for the baseline mean or a before-and-after contrast is reported in the registry record, so the precision of such estimates cannot be assessed.

What would a before-and-after analysis need to clarify?

General explanation: repeated surveys may involve the same people measured at multiple times, different respondents at each time, or some combination. These situations require different approaches to estimating change and its uncertainty. When the same people contribute observations at multiple times, analyses may need to account for the relationship between their scores. When respondents differ, changes in the composition of respondents can complicate interpretation. The registry record does not report whether surveys were linked by officer, how later responses were handled, or which analysis was planned or performed.

The sequential label does not, by itself, specify the statistical model. The record does not report whether the study used an individual-level comparison, an aggregate comparison over time, or another approach. It also does not describe a control group suitable for separating campaign-related change from other changes. General explanation: in nonrandomized before-and-after work, temporal trends, concurrent initiatives, and changes in who responds can affect estimates. A comparison design and analysis must address these issues to support a causal interpretation.

How should sample-size planning be read?

General explanation: a sample-size calculation uses assumptions about the effect to be detected, variability, significance level, power, allocation, and analysis method. It is a planning illustration, not an observed study result and not evidence that an effect was detected. The record describes a planning approach using a two-sided significance level of 0.05, equal allocation between two arms, and a normal approximation, with effects expressed as fractions of an observed effect. It says that time-to-event planning reports total events and other planning reports participants per arm. No resulting planning estimates are reported in the registry record. The stated assumptions do not establish that the study itself was designed or analyzed using those methods.

General explanation: over-dispersion occurs when observed variability exceeds what a statistical model assumes. If a model underestimates variability, its uncertainty estimates can be too small and tests can appear more decisive than warranted. This is a general concern in some count or clustered-data settings, not a documented feature of this scale or study. The registry record does not report an over-dispersion assessment or a model for the primary endpoint.

Because numerical outcome estimates and analysis details are absent, no recalculated estimate from posted summary statistics is available to interpret. The registry record does not report an effect estimate that could be checked against a sponsor analysis. Any interpretation should therefore remain descriptive of the registered study and endpoint, rather than implying an unreported test or calculation.

10. Confidence Intervals for Each Arm

No two-arm comparison is shown for this trial, but each arm's mean can be given with a t-based 95% confidence interval computed from the posted mean, spread and number of participants.

R code and output

arm <- c("Targeted Educational Campaign (TEC) for Correction")
n   <- c(200)
m   <- c(6.3)
sp  <- c(2.5)
sd  <- sp      # posted standard deviations
for (i in seq_along(n)) {
  se <- sd[i] / sqrt(n[i]); h <- qt(0.975, n[i] - 1) * se
  cat(sprintf("CARM|%s|%d|%.3f|%.3f|%.3f|%.3f\n", arm[i], n[i], m[i], sd[i], m[i] - h, m[i] + h))
}

CARM  Targeted Educational Campaign (TEC) for Correction  200  6.300  2.500  5.951  6.649

11. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations

The registry lists nine outcome measures and zero registered analyses. It identifies Correction Officers' knowledge at baseline as the primary outcome, but the available record does not give numerical results for that outcome. The other outcome measures and their results are not detailed in the information available for this study. The registry record does not report how outcomes were prioritized in an analysis, whether secondary outcomes were tested, or how multiplicity was handled.

Multiplicity arises when several outcomes, time points, subgroups, or statistical tests are examined. General explanation: testing many questions can increase the chance of finding an apparently notable result by chance, so an analysis plan may specify a primary question and methods for interpreting additional tests. No such plan or adjustment method is reported in the registry record. The listed count of outcome measures alone does not reveal how many statistical tests were performed.

Missing-data information is also limited. The record says that only 200 Correction Officers completed the baseline survey and that data exist for only 200 officers at baseline. It does not report the number completing any later survey, reasons for nonresponse, or whether baseline scores differed between those with and without follow-up data. It does not describe imputation, weighting, or another method for addressing missing observations.

The registry record does not define an analysis population or explain whether analyses used all enrolled participants, survey respondents at each time, or linked respondents. These details matter because the interpretation of a mean or change estimate depends on who contributed data and how missing observations were handled. Without those details and outcome results, neither the impact of missing data nor the scope of any analysis can be assessed.

12. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean

The record establishes that a targeted education campaign was planned for Correction Officers in three jails, with educational material about recognizing early psychotic symptoms and making referrals. It also establishes that the registered primary measure was baseline knowledge and skills on the Correction Officers' Behavioral Capability Scale, for which higher scores represent better knowledge about psychosis.

Those details describe the intervention's aims and the intended meaning of the scale. They do not show that the campaign improved knowledge, increased referrals, or changed care. The registry record does not report a numerical baseline score, a post-campaign score, a before-and-after contrast, or an uncertainty interval. As a result, it cannot establish the size, direction, or precision of any change in the primary measure.

The study is identified as sequential rather than randomized, and the registry cautions that the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison. Even if a before-and-after difference were reported, general statistical interpretation would require attention to other changes over time and to who completed each survey. The registered information does not describe a control comparison that would isolate the campaign's effect.

The campaign's broader goals concern early detection and referral. A knowledge scale is relevant to those goals, but it is not a direct measure of detainee referral, treatment, or duration of untreated psychosis. Those outcomes cannot be inferred from the scale's description. The registry record does not report results for them in the information available for this study.

Thus, the record supports a description of the campaign and its baseline measurement, not a conclusion about effectiveness. Absence of a reported result is not evidence that the campaign had no effect; it means the effect cannot be judged from these registry entries.

13. Why This Trial Matters Statistically

This study illustrates the distinction between an intervention's rationale and the outcome actually registered for evaluation. The campaign aimed to strengthen early recognition and referral, while the primary endpoint described in the record is baseline knowledge and skills. Keeping those constructs separate prevents a scale score from being treated as direct evidence of referral behavior or patient-level impact.

It also highlights the importance of matching a study's design to its causal question. A before-and-after survey can describe change over time, but a sequential, nonrandomized design does not by itself distinguish an intervention effect from other influences. The registry explicitly cautions that the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison. An interpretation of change would need clear information about survey timing, respondent linkage, comparison groups, and analysis methods; those details are not reported in the registry record.

Reporting the mean and standard deviation is appropriate for a continuous scale, but those labels do not provide the actual results. Without an estimate and a measure of uncertainty, readers cannot judge the level of baseline knowledge or the precision of a change estimate. The record's statement that only 200 Correction Officers completed the baseline survey also makes response and follow-up reporting important for understanding which officers the data represent.

Statistically, the case is a reminder that intervention descriptions, outcome definitions, analysis plans, and numerical findings answer different questions. A completed status and a detailed campaign rationale do not replace reported outcome estimates. Clear reporting of those elements is needed for readers to distinguish what was intended, what was measured, and what the data support.

14. Limitations

• The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
• Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.

The principal limitation for statistical interpretation is the absence of numerical results for the registered primary endpoint. Although the record defines the scale, its range, and the direction of better scores, it does not report a baseline mean or standard deviation. A before-and-after change estimate and its precision are also not reported in the registry record.

The record's design information does not describe a randomized control comparison. It identifies the study as sequential and cautions that arms are not like-for-like controls. This limits the causal conclusions that could be drawn from a simple temporal comparison, particularly if other conditions changed while the campaign was being implemented. The record does not describe how any such influences were assessed.

Response and follow-up information is incomplete. Only 200 Correction Officers completed the baseline survey, while the registry lists enrollment as 451. The record does not explain the relationship between those figures, describe the later survey response, or report whether the same officers completed surveys at each time. Without that information, the extent and consequences of missing observations cannot be evaluated.

The primary endpoint captures survey-based knowledge and skills, not observed recognition or referral behavior. The campaign's stated objectives involve recognition and referrals, but the available registry information does not provide numerical results for those outcomes. The record also does not report an analysis plan, methods for handling multiple outcomes, or a definition of the analysis population. These omissions leave the scope and reliability of any inferential analysis uncertain.

Finally, the registry lists nine outcome measures but no registered analyses. This makes it difficult to determine how the primary endpoint was distinguished from other outcomes in the analysis or how findings were selected and interpreted. These are limitations of the information reported in the registry record; they do not establish that an analysis was not conducted outside the registered record.

15. Related Tutorials

16. Related Statistical Calculators

17. Sources

• ClinicalTrials.gov: Survey of Correction Officers Before and After a Targeted Education Campaign — NCT05451225.
• Registry record last updated 2022-10-25; status last verified 2022-10.
• Results first posted 2022-10-25.
• Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
• Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.

18. Record Summary

NCT05451225 is a completed sequential survey study of Correction Officers around a Targeted Educational Campaign in three jails. The campaign used print materials and targeted trainings intended to support recognition of psychosis and referrals to Correctional Health Services. The record lists no masking and no randomized allocation.

The registered primary outcome is baseline knowledge and skills measured with the Correction Officers' Behavioral Capability Scale, a continuous scale from 0 to 10 on which higher scores indicate better knowledge about psychosis. The registry says that only 200 Correction Officers completed the baseline survey. It lists enrollment as 451 and records the study start as 2020-01-08 and primary completion as 2021-03-05.

The registry record does not report a numerical result for the primary endpoint, a before-and-after effect estimate, or its uncertainty. It lists nine outcome measures and zero registered analyses. The available information therefore describes the campaign and measurement approach, but does not establish whether knowledge changed or whether the campaign affected referral behavior.