No abstract

Background University students are reporting concerning levels of mental health distress and challenges. University mental health service provider initiatives have been shown to be effective in supporting students’ mental health, but these services are often resource-intensive. Consequently, new approaches to service delivery, such as web-based and peer support initiatives, have emerged as cost-effective and efficient approaches to support university students. However, these approaches have not been sufficiently evaluated for effectiveness or acceptability in university student populations. Objective Thus, the overarching goal of this study was to evaluate a mental health service provider–presented versus peer-presented web-based mental health resilience–building video outreach program against a wait-list comparison group. Methods Participants were 217 undergraduate students (mean age 20.44, SD 1.98 years; 171/217, 78.8% women) who were randomly assigned to one of the intervention groups (mental health service provider–presented: 69/217, 31.8%; peer-presented: 73/217, 33.6%) or the wait-list comparison group (75/217, 34.6%). Participants in the intervention groups were asked to watch 3 brief skill-building videos addressing strategies for building mental health resilience, whereas the comparison group was wait-listed. The mental health service provider–presented and peer-presented video series were identical in content, with presenters using a script to ensure consistency across delivery methods, but the videos differed in that they were either presented by mental health service providers or university students (peers). All participants were asked to complete web-based self-report measures of stress, coping self-efficacy, social support, social connectedness, mindfulness, and quality of life at baseline (time 1), 6 weeks later (time 2, after the intervention), and 1-month follow-up (time 3). Results Results from a series of 2-way ANOVAs found no significant differences in outcomes among any of the 3 groups. Surprisingly, a main effect of time revealed that all students improved on several well-being outcomes. In addition, results for program satisfaction revealed that both the mental health service provider–presented and peer-presented programs were rated very highly and at comparable levels. Conclusions Thus, findings suggest that a web-based mental health resilience–building video outreach program may be acceptable for university students regardless of it being mental health service provider–presented or peer-presented. Furthermore, the overall increases in well-being across groups, which coincided with the onset and early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest an unexpected pattern of response among university students to the early period of the pandemic. Limitations and barriers as well as research implications are discussed. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05454592; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05454592

BACKGROUND University students are reporting concerning levels of mental health distress and challenges. University mental health service provider (MHSP) initiatives have been shown to be effective in supporting students’ mental health; but these services are often resource-intensive. Consequently, new approaches to service delivery such as online and peer support initiatives have emerged as cost-effective and efficient approaches to support university students. However, these approaches have not been sufficiently evaluated for effectiveness or acceptability in university student populations. OBJECTIVE Thus, the overarching goal of the present study was to evaluate a MHSP-presented versus peer-presented online mental health resilience-building video outreach program against a wait-list comparison group. METHODS Participants were 217 undergraduate students (Mage = 20.40 years, SD = 1.96, 79.7 % women) who were randomly assigned to one of the intervention groups (MHSP-presented (n = 69) or peer-presented (n = 73)) or the wait-list comparison group (n=75). Participants in the intervention groups were asked to watch three brief skills-building videos addressing strategies for building mental health resilience, while the comparison group was wait-listed. The MHSP-presented and peer-presented video series were identical in content, with presenters using a script to ensure consistency across delivery methods, but videos differed in which they were either presented by MHSPs or university students (peer). All participants were asked to complete online self-report measures of stress, coping self-efficacy, social support, social connectedness, mindfulness, and quality of life at baseline (Time 1), six weeks later (Time 2; post), and at a 1-month follow up (Time 3). RESULTS Results from a series of two-way ANOVAs found no significant differences in outcomes between any of the three groups. Surprisingly, a main effect of time revealed that all students improved on several well-being outcomes. Additionally, results for program satisfaction revealed that both the MHSP-presented and peer-presented programs were rated very highly and at comparable levels. CONCLUSIONS Thus, findings suggest that an online mental health resilience-building video outreach may be acceptable for university students regardless of if it is MHSP-presented or peer-presented. Furthermore, the overall increases in well-being across groups which coincided with the onset and early weeks of COVID-19 suggest an unexpected pattern of response amongst university students to the early period of the pandemic. Limitations and barriers as well as research implications are discussed.

Deaf students are actively pursuing careers in health care professions. As a result, postsecondary institutions are navigating the complexities of accommodations during internships. Institutions are required to make decisions on a case‐by‐case basis and should involve the student in the decision‐making process. Understanding legal responsibilities for accessibility is essential for equitable internship experiences (see Equitable Access Guide: Understanding Legal Responsibilities for Institutions at http://www.nationaldeafcenter.org/eag).

No abstract