Petr Winkler1,2,3, Miroslava Janoušková4, Jiří Kožený4,5, Jiří Pasz4,6, Karolína Mladá4, Aneta Weissová4, Eva Tušková4, Sara Evans-Lacko7,8. 1. Department of Social Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health, Topolová 748, Klecany, 250 67, Czech Republic. petr.winkler@nudz.cz. 2. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. petr.winkler@nudz.cz. 3. Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Albertov 6, Prague, 128 43, Czech Republic. petr.winkler@nudz.cz. 4. Department of Social Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health, Topolová 748, Klecany, 250 67, Czech Republic. 5. The 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruská 2411/87, 100 00, Prague, Czech Republic. 6. Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Albertov 6, Prague, 128 43, Czech Republic. 7. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. 8. Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess whether short video interventions could reduce stigma among nursing students. METHODS: A multi-centre, randomised controlled trial was conducted. Participating schools were randomly selected and randomly assigned to receive: (1) an informational leaflet, (2) a short video intervention or (3) a seminar involving direct contact with a service user. The Community Attitudes towards Mental Illness (CAMI) and Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS) were selected as primary outcome measures. SPANOVA models were built and Cohen's d calculated to assess the overall effects in each of the trial arms. RESULTS: Compared to the baseline, effect sizes immediately after the intervention were small in the flyer arm (CAMI: d = 0.25; RIBS: d = 0.07), medium in the seminar arm (CAMI: d = 0.61; RIBS: d = 0.58), and medium in the video arm (CAMI: d = 0.49 RIBS: d = 0.26; n = 237). Effect sizes at the follow-up were vanishing in the flyer arm (CAMI: d = 0.05; RIBS: d = 0.04), medium in the seminar arm (CAMI: d = 0.43; RIBS: d = 0.26; n = 254), and small in the video arm (CAMI: d = 0.22 RIBS: d = 0.21; n = 237). CONCLUSION: Seminar had the strongest and relatively stable effect on students' attitudes and intended behaviour, but the effect of short video interventions was also considerable and stable over time. Since short effective video interventions are relatively cheap, conveniently accessible and easy to disseminate globally, we recommend them for further research and development.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess whether short video interventions could reduce stigma among nursing students. METHODS: A multi-centre, randomised controlled trial was conducted. Participating schools were randomly selected and randomly assigned to receive: (1) an informational leaflet, (2) a short video intervention or (3) a seminar involving direct contact with a service user. The Community Attitudes towards Mental Illness (CAMI) and Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS) were selected as primary outcome measures. SPANOVA models were built and Cohen's d calculated to assess the overall effects in each of the trial arms. RESULTS: Compared to the baseline, effect sizes immediately after the intervention were small in the flyer arm (CAMI: d = 0.25; RIBS: d = 0.07), medium in the seminar arm (CAMI: d = 0.61; RIBS: d = 0.58), and medium in the video arm (CAMI: d = 0.49 RIBS: d = 0.26; n = 237). Effect sizes at the follow-up were vanishing in the flyer arm (CAMI: d = 0.05; RIBS: d = 0.04), medium in the seminar arm (CAMI: d = 0.43; RIBS: d = 0.26; n = 254), and small in the video arm (CAMI: d = 0.22 RIBS: d = 0.21; n = 237). CONCLUSION: Seminar had the strongest and relatively stable effect on students' attitudes and intended behaviour, but the effect of short video interventions was also considerable and stable over time. Since short effective video interventions are relatively cheap, conveniently accessible and easy to disseminate globally, we recommend them for further research and development.
Authors: S Evans-Lacko; D Rose; K Little; C Flach; D Rhydderch; C Henderson; G Thornicroft Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: M Janoušková; E Tušková; A Weissová; P Trančík; J Pasz; S Evans-Lacko; P Winkler Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 5.361
Authors: J Konadu Fokuo; Virginia Goldrick; Jeanette Rossetti; Carol Wahlstrom; Carla Kundert; Jonathon Larson; Patrick Corrigan Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2016-06-01
Authors: Sarah Clement; Adrienne van Nieuwenhuizen; Aliya Kassam; Clare Flach; Anisha Lazarus; Melanie de Castro; Paul McCrone; Ian Norman; Graham Thornicroft Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Eileen Kaner; Martin Bland; Paul Cassidy; Simon Coulton; Veronica Dale; Paolo Deluca; Eilish Gilvarry; Christine Godfrey; Nick Heather; Judy Myles; Dorothy Newbury-Birch; Adenekan Oyefeso; Steve Parrott; Katherine Perryman; Tom Phillips; Jonathan Shepherd; Colin Drummond Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-01-09
Authors: Luca Pingani; Gaia Sampogna; Sara Evans-Lacko; Benedetta Gozzi; Vincenzo Giallonardo; Mario Luciano; Gian Maria Galeazzi; Andrea Fiorillo Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2019-05-23
Authors: Laura Nyblade; Melissa A Stockton; Kayla Giger; Virginia Bond; Maria L Ekstrand; Roger Mc Lean; Ellen M H Mitchell; La Ron E Nelson; Jaime C Sapag; Taweesap Siraprapasiri; Janet Turan; Edwin Wouters Journal: BMC Med Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Luca Pingani; Sara Evans-Lacko; Sandra Coriani; Silvia Ferrari; Maria Filosa; Gian Maria Galeazzi; Mattia Lorenzini; Tommaso Manari; Alessandro Musetti; Anna Maria Nasi; Christian Franceschini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 3.390