The COVID-19 outbreak has simultaneously increased the need for mental health services and decreased their availability. Brief online self-help interventions that can be completed in a single session could be especially helpful in improving access to care during the crisis. However, little is known about the uptake, acceptability, and perceived utility of these interventions outside of clinical trials in which participants are compensated. Here, we describe the development, deployment, acceptability ratings, and pre–post effects of a single-session intervention, the Common Elements Toolbox (COMET), adapted for the COVID-19 crisis to support graduate and professional students. Participants (n = 263), who were not compensated, were randomly assigned to two of three modules: behavioral activation, cognitive restructuring, and gratitude. Over 1 week, 263 individuals began and 189 individuals (72%) completed the intervention. Participants reported that the intervention modules were acceptable (93% endorsing), helpful (88%), engaging (86%), applicable to their lives (87%), and could help them manage COVID-related challenges (88%). Participants reported pre- to post-program improvements in secondary control (i.e., the belief that one can control their reactions to objective events; dav = 0.36, dz = 0.50, p < 0.001) and in the perceived negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on their quality of life (dav = 0.22, dz = 0.25, p < 0.001). On average, differences in their perceived ability to handle lifestyle changes resulting from the pandemic were positive, but small and at the level of a non-significant trend (dav = 0.13, dz = 0.14, p = 0.066). Our results highlight the acceptability and utility of an online intervention for supporting individuals through the COVID-19 crisis.
BackgroundThe COVID-19 crisis has introduced a variety of stressors, while simultaneously decreasing the availability of strategies to cope with stress. In this context, it could be useful to understand issues that people find most concerning and ways in which they cope with stress. In this study, we explored these questions with a sample of graduate and professional students.MethodUsing open-ended assessments, we asked participants (n = 305) to identify their biggest challenge or concern (“top problem”), their most effective way of handling stress (“effective strategy”), and their most common way of handling stress (“common strategy”). We applied thematic analysis and evaluated whether participants’ strategies corresponded with evidence-based practices (EBPs).ResultsParticipants frequently reported top problems relating to productivity (27% of sample), physical health (26%), and emotional health (14%). Distraction was the most frequently classified common strategy (43%), whereas behavioral activation was the most frequently identified effective strategy (50%). Participants who reported a common strategy classified as an EBP reported lower depressive and anxiety symptoms. In contrast, there was no evidence of an association between symptom levels and whether or not participants’ effective strategy was an EBP. Participants who reported the same strategy as both their common and effective strategy (29%) reported lower depressive symptoms than those whose common and effective strategies were different.ConclusionOur findings highlight stressors that students are experiencing and ways they are coping during the COVID-19 crisis. We discuss how these findings can inform mental health promotion efforts and future research on coping with stressors.
The COVID-19 outbreak has simultaneously increased the need for mental health services and decreased their availability. Brief online self-help interventions that can be completed in a single session could be especially helpful in improving access to care during the crisis. However, little is known about the uptake, acceptability, and perceived utility of these interventions outside of clinical trials in which participants are compensated. Here, we describe the development, deployment, acceptability ratings, and pre-post effects of a single-session intervention, the Common Elements Toolbox (COMET), adapted for the COVID-19 crisis to support graduate and professional students. Participants (n = 263), who were not compensated, were randomly assigned to two of three modules: behavioral activation, cognitive restructuring, and gratitude. Over one week, 263 individuals began and 189 individuals (72%) completed the intervention. Participants reported that the intervention modules were acceptable (93% endorsing), helpful (88%), engaging (86%), applicable to their lives (87%), and could help them manage COVID-related challenges (88%). Participants reported pre- to post-program improvements in secondary control (i.e., the belief that one can control their reactions to objective events; dav=0.36, dz=0.50, p<0.001) and in the perceived negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on their quality of life (dav=0.22, dz=0.25, p<0.001). On average, differences in their perceived ability to handle lifestyle changes resulting from the pandemic were positive, but small and at the level of a nonsignificant trend (dav=0.13, dz=0.14, p=0.066). Our results highlight the acceptability and utility of an online intervention for supporting individuals through the COVID-19 crisis.
right hemisphere at Time 3. In sum, longitudinal findings showed large between-and within-subject variability in rate of change as well as time to reach neural developmental milestones (e.g., presence of a detectable M100 response). Findings also demonstrated the need to examine whole-brain activity, given hemisphere differences in the rate of auditory cortex maturation. Pediatric research will need to take such normal variability into account when seeking clinical auditory markers.
Background: The COVID-19 crisis has introduced a variety of stressors, while simultaneously decreasing the availability of strategies to cope with stress. In this context, it could be useful to understand issues that people find most concerning and ways in which they cope with stress. In this study, we explored these questions with a sample of graduate and professional students.Method: Using open-ended assessments, we asked participants (n=305) to identify their biggest challenge or concern (“top problem”), their most effective way of handling stress (“effective strategy”), and their most common way of handling stress (“common strategy”). We applied thematic analysis and evaluated whether participants’ strategies corresponded with evidence-based practices (EBPs). Results: Participants frequently reported top problems relating to productivity (27% of sample), physical health (26%), and emotional health (14%). Distraction was the most frequently classified common strategy (43%), whereas behavioral activation was the most frequently identified effective strategy (50%). Participants who reported a common strategy classified as an EBP reported lower depressive and anxiety symptoms. In contrast, there was no evidence of an association between symptom levels and whether or not participants’ effective strategy was an EBP. Participants who reported the same strategy as both their common and effective strategy (29%) reported lower depressive symptoms than those whose common and effective strategies were different. Conclusions: Our findings highlight stressors that students are experiencing and ways they are coping during the COVID-19 crisis. We discuss how these findings can inform mental health promotion efforts and future research on coping with stressors.
Maturation of auditory cortex neural encoding processes was assessed in children with typical development (TD) and autism. Children 6-9 years old were enrolled at Time 1 (T1), with follow-up data obtained ~ 18 months later at Time 2 (T2), and ~ 36 months later at Time 3 (T3). Findings suggested an initial period of rapid auditory cortex maturation in autism, earlier than TD (prior to and surrounding the T1 exam), followed by a period of faster maturation in TD than autism (T1-T3). As a result of group maturation differences, post-stimulus group differences were observed at T1 but not T3. In contrast, stronger pre-stimulus activity in autism than TD was found at all time points, indicating this brain measure is stable across time.
In a relaxed and awake state with the eyes closed, 8-12 Hz neural oscillations are the dominant rhythm, most prominent in parietal-occipital regions. Resting-state (RS) alpha is associated with processing speed and is also thought to be central to how networks process information. Unfortunately, the RS eyes-closed (EC) exam can only be used with individuals who can remain awake with their eyes closed for an extended period. As such, infants, toddlers, and individuals with intellectual disabilities are usually excluded from RS alpha studies. Previous research suggests obtaining RS alpha measures in a dark room with the eyes open as a viable alternative to the traditional RS EC exam. To further explore this, RS EC and RS dark room (DR) eyes-open alpha activity was recorded using magnetoencephalography in children with typical development (TD; N = 37) and children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; N = 30) 6.9-12.6 years old. Findings showed good reliability for the RS EC and DR peak alpha frequency (frequency with strongest alpha power; interclass correlation (ICC) = 0.83). ICCs for posterior alpha power were slightly lower (ICCs in the 0.70 s), with an ~ 5% reduction in posterior alpha power in the DR than EC condition. No differences in the EC and DR associations were observed between the TD and ASD groups. Finally, age was associated with both EC and DR peak alpha frequency. Findings thus indicate the DR exam as a viable way to obtain RS alpha measures in populations frequently excluded from electrophysiology RS studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.