跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT06773468
NCT06773468已完成不适用

Evaluating Knowledge Mobilization for Stress Management in University Students

McGill University1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 313 人开始时间: 2023年1月9日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
313
试验地点
1
主要终点
Change in Stress

研究概览

简要总结

The present study examined the comparative effectiveness of self-directed (video, infographic) vs. non-self directed (workshop) modalities of online stress management resources and an inactive control condition in terms of their effectiveness and acceptability for university students.

详细描述

University students have been reporting high levels of stress, which have been found to negatively impact their academic performance and overall well-being. Given these elevated levels of stress, a large number of students report using unhealthy coping behaviours such as alcohol and drug use or risky sexual behaviours to cope with daily stressors. High levels of stress can be harmful to students' quality of life and well-being (both physical and mental), as well as elevated stress over an extended period can hinder academic performance. To address the overwhelming demands for wellness services, online approaches to delivering stress management and well-being supports are being used on campuses as supplemental means of promoting student stress management, coping capacity, and well-being.

Growing research on the barriers associated with help-seeking and changes due to the pandemic have spurred a shift from in-person supports to online self-directed modalities. Evidence from research measuring the acceptability of digital mental health interventions in university students suggests that students rate these interventions with moderate to high acceptability, but students report concerns around the use of certain digital modalities such as privacy, credibility, and lack of guidance on how to get started and use the interventions. Research has demonstrated how these types of online support can be effective at enhancing university student well-being and decreasing stress. For example, an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to synthesize the literature on digital mental health interventions in higher education found that most interventions were effective at decreasing depression symptoms, anxiety, and stress in this context. Specifically, skills-training and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions were found to be effective. However, it is important to highlight that the authors found that the effectiveness depended on the modality or delivery format of the intervention. Although there is evidence for their individual effectiveness when compared to inactive control groups, it is crucial to have a better theoretical understanding of their relative effectiveness to one another to make research-informed decisions in selecting instructional approaches to support students' coping capacity in higher education.

Therefore, the overarching objective of the current study is to investigate how stress management knowledge can be effectively put into action within the university context by comparing different modalities. The study seeks to investigate differences in response to self-directed vs. non self-directed approaches to sharing stress management knowledge with students against a control group, specifically in terms of acceptability and change over time on wellness outcomes while accounting for the role of strategy use frequency. Specifically, the first objective (1.1) was to compare and evaluate self-directed, non self-directed, and an inactive control group by assessing effectiveness as demonstrated in changes (pre/post/follow-up) on wellness outcomes (i.e., perceived stress, coping capacity, mindfulness, coping self-efficacy, and well-being), while (1.2) examining the role of strategy use frequency. The second objective (2) is to further examine specific differences between commonly used knowledge mobilization modalities for stress management strategies (workshop, video, infographic) and an inactive control group by assessing (2.1) acceptability (i.e., likelihood of use, satisfaction) and (2.2) effectiveness as demonstrated in changes (pre/post/follow-up) on the same wellness outcomes while (2.3) examining the role of strategy use frequency.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Other
盲法
None

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 29 Years(Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者
是

入选标准

  • •Current university student

排除标准

  • 未提供

研究组 & 干预措施

Video

Experimental

a short 10-minute stress management video providing psychoeducation and strategy practice with links to strategies shared at the end

干预措施: stress management (Behavioral)

Inactive control

No Intervention

Waitlist inactive control that will receive all stress management materials at the end of the study

Infographic

Experimental

a brief 3-page stress management interactive infographic (i.e., with psychoeducation and embedded links for strategy practice)

干预措施: stress management (Behavioral)

Workshop

Experimental

30-minute online stress management workshop providing psychoeducation and strategy practice with links to strategies shared at the end

干预措施: stress management (Behavioral)

结局指标

主要结局

Change in Stress

时间窗: Week 0, 4, and 7

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is a widely used self-report measure of individuals' perception of stress. This measure contains 10 items in which participants indicate their experience of stress on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never to 4 = very often). Items were adapted to reflect experiences during the past week and include statements such as "In the past week, how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?" Ratings were averaged across items such that higher scores represented greater perceived stress. The PSS has good reliability (Cronbach's α = .89), construct validity, and predictive validity with reports of psychological and physical symptoms.

次要结局

  • Change in Satisfaction(Week 4 and 7)
  • Change in coping capacity(Week 0, 4, and 7)
  • Change in mindfulness(Week 0, 4, and 7)
  • Change in coping self-efficacy(Week 0, 4, and 7)
  • Change in well-being(Week 0, 4, and 7)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Principal Investigator
主要研究者

Nancy Heath

Distinguished James McGill Professor

McGill University

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验