Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Formative Research
Date Submitted: May 20, 2020
Date Accepted: Sep 22, 2020
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Assessing the Efficacy and Acceptability of a Web-Based Intervention for Resilience Among College Students: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
ABSTRACT
Background:
College students are at elevated risk for developing mental health problems and face specific barriers around accessing evidence-based treatment. Web-based interventions that focus on mental health promotion and strengthening resilience represent one possible solution and providing support to users has shown to reduce drop-out in these interventions. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy and acceptability of these interventions and explore the viability of automating support.
Objective:
This study investigated the feasibility of a new web-based resilience programme based on positive psychology, provided with human or automated support, in a sample of college students.
Methods:
A three-armed closed pilot randomized controlled trial design was used. Participants were randomized to the intervention with human support (n=29), intervention with automated support (n=26) or waiting list (n=28) group. Primary outcomes were resilience and well-being, respectively measured by the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and Pemberton Happiness Index. Secondary outcomes included measures of depression and anxiety, self-esteem and stress. Outcomes were self-assessed through online questionnaires. Intention-to-treat and per analyses were conducted.
Results:
All participants demonstrated significant improvements in resilience and related outcomes, including an unexpected improvement in the waiting list group. Within- and between-group effect sizes ranged from small to moderate and within-group effects were typically larger for the human than automated support group. A total of 36 participants began the programme and completed 46.46% of it on average. Participants were generally satisfied with the programme and found it easy to use.
Conclusions:
Conclusions:
Findings do not reflect the true efficacy of the intervention given the pilot nature of the study. Preliminary evidence for the equal benefit of human and automated support needs to be supported by further research with a larger sample. Results of this study will inform the development of a full-scale trial, from which stronger conclusions may be drawn. Clinical Trial: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 11866034; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN1186603
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.