Alison L Calear1, Philip J Batterham2, Carmel T Poyser2, Andrew J Mackinnon3, Kathleen M Griffiths2, Helen Christensen4. 1. National Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. Electronic address: Alison.Calear@anu.edu.au. 2. National Institute for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 3. Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety is a common mental health problem in youth. The current study aimed to test the effectiveness of an online self-directed anxiety prevention program in a school-based sample and to compare two methods of implementing an anxiety program in schools. METHODS: A three-arm cluster stratified randomised controlled trial was conducted with 30 Australian schools. Each school was randomly assigned to receive: (1) externally-supported intervention, (2) teacher-supported intervention, or (3) wait-list control. All consenting students (N=1767) were invited to complete pre-intervention, post-intervention, 6- and 12-month follow-up questionnaires measuring generalised anxiety, social anxiety, anxiety sensitivity, depressive symptoms and mental wellbeing. Intervention participants completed the e-couch Anxiety and Worry program over 6 weeks. RESULTS: At post-intervention, 6- and 12-month follow-up no significant differences were observed between the intervention and control conditions for generalised anxiety (Cohen's d=-0.14 to 0.15), social anxiety (d=0.04-0.23), anxiety sensitivity (d=-0.07 to 0.07), depressive symptoms (d=-0.05 to 0.04) or mental wellbeing (d=-0.06 to -0.30). LIMITATIONS: The current study only included self-report measures that may have been influenced by situational factors or biases. CONCLUSIONS: The e-couch Anxiety and Worry program did not have a significant positive effect on participant mental health or wellbeing. The addition of a mental health education officer to support classroom teachers in the delivery of the program also had no effect on intervention outcomes. Future prevention research should look to develop briefer and more interactive interventions that are more engaging for youth.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Anxiety is a common mental health problem in youth. The current study aimed to test the effectiveness of an online self-directed anxiety prevention program in a school-based sample and to compare two methods of implementing an anxiety program in schools. METHODS: A three-arm cluster stratified randomised controlled trial was conducted with 30 Australian schools. Each school was randomly assigned to receive: (1) externally-supported intervention, (2) teacher-supported intervention, or (3) wait-list control. All consenting students (N=1767) were invited to complete pre-intervention, post-intervention, 6- and 12-month follow-up questionnaires measuring generalised anxiety, social anxiety, anxiety sensitivity, depressive symptoms and mental wellbeing. Intervention participants completed the e-couch Anxiety and Worry program over 6 weeks. RESULTS: At post-intervention, 6- and 12-month follow-up no significant differences were observed between the intervention and control conditions for generalised anxiety (Cohen's d=-0.14 to 0.15), social anxiety (d=0.04-0.23), anxiety sensitivity (d=-0.07 to 0.07), depressive symptoms (d=-0.05 to 0.04) or mental wellbeing (d=-0.06 to -0.30). LIMITATIONS: The current study only included self-report measures that may have been influenced by situational factors or biases. CONCLUSIONS: The e-couch Anxiety and Worry program did not have a significant positive effect on participant mental health or wellbeing. The addition of a mental health education officer to support classroom teachers in the delivery of the program also had no effect on intervention outcomes. Future prevention research should look to develop briefer and more interactive interventions that are more engaging for youth.
Authors: Joep van Agteren; Matthew Iasiello; Laura Lo; Jonathan Bartholomaeus; Zoe Kopsaftis; Marissa Carey; Michael Kyrios Journal: Nat Hum Behav Date: 2021-04-19
Authors: Armando A Pina; Nancy A Gonzales; Gina L Mazza; Heather J Gunn; Lindsay E Holly; Ryan D Stoll; Julia Parker; Amanda Chiapa; Henry Wynne; Jenn-Yun Tein Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2020-05
Authors: Yael Perry; Aliza Werner-Seidler; Alison Calear; Andrew Mackinnon; Catherine King; Jan Scott; Sally Merry; Theresa Fleming; Karolina Stasiak; Helen Christensen; Philip J Batterham Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ashley D Radomski; Lori Wozney; Patrick McGrath; Anna Huguet; Lisa Hartling; Michele P Dyson; Kathryn Bennett; Amanda S Newton Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Minna Anttila; Ruthaychonnee Sittichai; Jouko Katajisto; Maritta Välimäki Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ina Beintner; Bianka Vollert; Anna-Carlotta Zarski; Felix Bolinski; Peter Musiat; Dennis Görlich; David Daniel Ebert; Corinna Jacobi Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Zach Abuwalla; Maureen D Clark; Brendan Burke; Viktorya Tannenbaum; Sarvanand Patel; Ryan Mitacek; Tracy Gladstone; Benjamin Van Voorhees Journal: Internet Interv Date: 2017-11-26