IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p3208-d1065850.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Three-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness, Acceptance, and Negative Effects of StudiCare Mindfulness, an Internet- and Mobile-Based Intervention for College Students with No and “On Demand” Guidance

Author

Listed:
  • Ann-Marie Küchler

    (Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, 89081 Ulm, Germany)

  • Dana Schultchen

    (Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Ulm University, 89081 Ulm, Germany)

  • Tim Dretzler

    (Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, 89081 Ulm, Germany)

  • Morten Moshagen

    (Department of Quantitative Methods in Psychology, Ulm University, 89081 Ulm, Germany)

  • David D. Ebert

    (Department for Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, 80992 Munich, Germany)

  • Harald Baumeister

    (Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, 89081 Ulm, Germany)

Abstract

The college years can be accompanied by mental distress. Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) have the potential to improve mental health but adherence is problematic. Psychological guidance might promote adherence but is resource intensive. In this three-armed randomized controlled trial, “guidance on demand” (GoD) and unguided (UG) adherence-promoting versions of the seven-module IMI StudiCare Mindfulness were compared with a waitlist control group and each other. The GoD participants could ask for guidance as needed. A total of 387 students with moderate/low mindfulness were recruited. Follow-up assessments took place after 1 (t1), 2 (t2), and 6 (t3) months. Post-intervention (t2), both versions significantly improved the primary outcome of mindfulness ( d = 0.91–1.06, 95% CI 0.66–1.32) and most other mental health outcomes ( d = 0.25–0.69, 95% CI 0.00–0.94) compared with WL, with effects generally persisting after 6 months. Exploratory comparisons between UG and GoD were mostly non-significant. Adherence was low but significantly higher in GoD (39%) vs. UG (28%) at the 6-month follow-up. Across versions, 15% of participants experienced negative effects, which were mostly mild. Both versions effectively promoted mental health in college students. Overall, GoD was not associated with substantial gains in effectiveness or adherence compared with UG. Future studies should investigate persuasive design to improve adherence.

Suggested Citation

  • Ann-Marie Küchler & Dana Schultchen & Tim Dretzler & Morten Moshagen & David D. Ebert & Harald Baumeister, 2023. "A Three-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness, Acceptance, and Negative Effects of StudiCare Mindfulness, an Internet- and Mobile-Based Intervention for College Students with," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3208-:d:1065850
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3208/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3208/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Buuren, Stef & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Karin, 2011. "mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 45(i03).
    2. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys: Reply," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 300-301, July.
    3. Keyes, C.L.M. & Dhingra, S.S. & Simoes, E.J., 2010. "Change in level of positive mental health as a predictor of future risk of mental Illness," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(12), pages 2366-2371.
    4. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    5. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 287-296, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jill T. Krause & Samantha M. Brown, 2023. "Mindfulness Intervention Improves Coping and Perceptions of Children’s Behavior among Families with Elevated Risk," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(23), pages 1-18, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gerko Vink & Laurence E. Frank & Jeroen Pannekoek & Stef Buuren, 2014. "Predictive mean matching imputation of semicontinuous variables," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 68(1), pages 61-90, February.
    2. Youngjoo Cho & Debashis Ghosh, 2021. "Quantile-Based Subgroup Identification for Randomized Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 90-128, April.
    3. Ahfock, Daniel & Pyne, Saumyadipta & McLachlan, Geoffrey J., 2022. "Statistical file-matching of non-Gaussian data: A game theoretic approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    4. Ralf Münnich & Siegfried Gabler & Christian Bruch & Jan Pablo Burgard & Tobias Enderle & Jan-Philipp Kolb & Thomas Zimmermann, 2015. "Tabellenauswertungen im Zensus unter Berücksichtigung fehlender Werte," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 9(3), pages 269-304, December.
    5. Michael D. Teter & Johannes O. Royset & Alexandra M. Newman, 2019. "Modeling uncertainty of expert elicitation for use in risk-based optimization," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 280(1), pages 189-210, September.
    6. Saeideh Kamgar & Florian Meinfelder & Ralf Münnich & Hamidreza Navvabpour, 2020. "Estimation within the new integrated system of household surveys in Germany," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 2091-2117, October.
    7. Jana Emmenegger & Ralf Münnich & Jannik Schaller, 2022. "Evaluating Data Fusion Methods to Improve Income Modelling," Research Papers in Economics 2022-03, University of Trier, Department of Economics.
    8. Marco Geraci & Alexander McLain, 2018. "Multiple Imputation for Bounded Variables," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(4), pages 919-940, December.
    9. Jensen, Are & Clausen, Tommy H., 2017. "Origins and emergence of exploration and exploitation capabilities in new technology-based firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 163-175.
    10. Gerko Vink & Stef van Buuren, 2013. "Multiple Imputation of Squared Terms," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(4), pages 598-607, November.
    11. Renate S M Buisman & Katharina Pittner & Marieke S Tollenaar & Jolanda Lindenberg & Lisa J M van den Berg & Laura H C G Compier-de Block & Joost R van Ginkel & Lenneke R A Alink & Marian J Bakermans-K, 2020. "Intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment using a multi-informant multi-generation family design," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-23, March.
    12. Adel Bosch & Steven F. Koch, 2021. "Individual and Household Debt: Does Imputation Choice Matter?," Working Papers 202141, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    13. Kristian Kleinke & Jost Reinecke, 2013. "Multiple imputation of incomplete zero-inflated count data," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 67(3), pages 311-336, August.
    14. Rabea Aschenbruck & Gero Szepannek & Adalbert F. X. Wilhelm, 2023. "Imputation Strategies for Clustering Mixed-Type Data with Missing Values," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 40(1), pages 2-24, April.
    15. Williams, Randi M. & Zhang, Jing & Woodard, Nathaniel & Slade, Jimmie & Santos, Sherie Lou Zara & Knott, Cheryl L., 2020. "Development and validation of an instrument to assess institutionalization of health promotion in faith-based organizations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    16. Lina Braun & Yannik Terhorst & Ingrid Titzler & Johanna Freund & Janika Thielecke & David Daniel Ebert & Harald Baumeister, 2022. "Lessons Learned from an Attempted Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial for Improvement of Chronic Pain-Associated Disability in Green Professions: Long-Term Effectiveness of a Guided Online-Based Acc," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-24, October.
    17. Mingyang Cai & Gerko Vink, 2022. "A note on imputing squares via polynomial combination approach," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 2185-2201, November.
    18. Joost Ginkel & Pieter Kroonenberg, 2014. "Using Generalized Procrustes Analysis for Multiple Imputation in Principal Component Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 31(2), pages 242-269, July.
    19. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    20. Martin, Eisele & Zhu, Junyi, 2013. "Multiple imputation in a complex household survey - the German Panel on Household Finances (PHF): challenges and solutions," MPRA Paper 57666, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3208-:d:1065850. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.