| Literature DB >> 34262287 |
Minna Anttila1, Tella Lantta1, Milla Ylitalo1,2, Marjo Kurki1,3, Marko Kuuskorpi4, Maritta Välimäki1,5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Health-related behaviors that arise during adolescence can have important, sometimes lifelong, implications on a person's health. Psychiatric and neurodevelopmental diagnoses among minors have increased, and the related depressive symptoms may negatively affect quality of life. There is great potential for information technology (IT) to benefit the area of mental health for adolescents, and schools can serve as a setting in which this can be done. We tested whether the IT-based program "DepisNet" could be used as a universal school-based program to support adolescents' well-being and mental health. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental, pre-post design with two preference arms (intervention and control groups). The study setting comprised two lower secondary schools (N=151 adolescents) in one city in Finland. To analyze the impact of the program, we compared the changes in the outcome measures between the two groups using T-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests. We analyzed the changes within the groups using T-tests and Wilcoxon tests.Entities:
Keywords: IT-based program; mental health support; pupils; teenaged; universal intervention
Year: 2021 PMID: 34262287 PMCID: PMC8275109 DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S311788
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc ISSN: 1178-2390
IT-Based Mental Health Support Programs in Schools
| Name | Theoretical Background | Target Group | Duration | Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bite Back | Positive psychology | 12–16 years | 6 weeks | Symptoms (depression, anxiety, stress), life satisfaction, mental well-being | No difference between groups. Problems with feasibility and application of the program in the schools.28 |
| MoodGym | CBT | 12–17 years | 5–6 weeks | Symptoms (depression, anxiety), attributional style, self-esteem, attitudes toward depression, depression literacy, adherence and attendance | Effective for anxiety and depression in one study involving males (1/3 completed all modules;29, but not in another, in which drop-out was high. 21 In a study involving females, there was a positive impact on depression, but intervention adherence was low .22 A positive relationship between program adherence and outcomes. 30 |
| e-couch Anxiety and Worry program | CBT | 14–15 years | 6 weeks | Symptoms (generalized anxiety, social anxiety, anxiety sensitivity, depression), mental well-being | No difference between groups. Participant attrition due to assessment absenteeism was high. All 6 weeks were completed by 36% 30 and 45% 31 of adolescents. |
| SPARX-R | CBT | 15–20 years | ~5 weeks | Symptoms (depression, anxiety, generalized anxiety), suicidality, depression stigma, mental well-being, coping, emotion regulation, acceptability | A positive impact on emotion regulation 23 and depression 20. 30% 23 and 59% 20 completed the entire program. Frequent practice of the intervention techniques increased perceived helpfulness of the program. 23 |
Figure 1Flow diagram.
Universal School-Based IT-Program Described According to TIDieR Checklist47
| Type of Intervention | Brief Name | Why | What (Materials) | What (Procedures) | Who Provided | How | Where | When and How Much |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contact | “DepisNet” | Self-determination theory | Computer (tablet) | Five modules with specific content and exercises ( | Tutors explained the modules face-to-face | Online in learning | Lower secondary school | The program was open for six weeks (1 theme a week), a maximum of 45 minutes per module. |
Intervention Providers and Their Roles
| Intervention Provider | Role Description |
|---|---|
| Teacher | ● Allowed adolescents to join weekly sessions |
| Tutor | ● Visited the school every week to meet the adolescents face-to-face, explained new modules and offered support if help was needed. |
Baseline Demographic and Clinical Data
| Characteristic | Intervention | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 14.90 (0.58) | 14.60 (0.66) | 0.009 |
| 0.64 | |||
| Male | 18 (32) | 20 (36) | |
| Female | 28 (68) | 35 (64) | |
| 0.01 | |||
| 8th | 7 (13) | 18 (33) | |
| 9th | 49 (87) | 37 (67) | |
| 0.16 | |||
| Very good | 10 (18) | 13 (23) | |
| Good | 40 (71) | 29 (54) | |
| Neither good nor poor/poor/very poor | 6 (11) | 13 (23) | |
| 0.19 | |||
| Very positive | 11 (20) | 15 (27) | |
| Positive | 37 (66) | 26 (47) | |
| Neither positive nor | 8 (14) | 14 (26) | |
| 1.00 (3.75) | 1.00 (3.00) | 0.62 | |
| 56.55 (7.65) | 56.63 (7.32) | 0.77 | |
| 29.59 (6.72) | 30.95 (5.36) | 0.51 | |
| 31.93 (4.48) | 32.22 (4.47) | 0.34 |
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range.
Comparison of the Change in Primary and Secondary Outcomes in Intervention and Control Group
| Outcome | Intervention Group | Control Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Change Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Change Mean (SD) | T-value (df) | 95% CI | P-valuea | |
| Baseline | 1.00 (3.75) | NA | 1.00 (3.00) | NA | NA | NA | 0.88 |
| Follow-up | 1.00 (3.00) | 0.00 (1.00) | |||||
| Baseline | 56.55 (7.65) | 1.36 (5.18) | 56.63 (7.32) | −0.49 (4.93) | 1.65 (80) | 0.10 | |
| Follow-up | 57.97 (7.93) | 56.61 (7.64) | |||||
| Baseline | 29.64 (6.83) | 0.79 (4.43) | 31.91 (5.25) | 0.16 (2.79) | 0.78 (80) | −1.02–2.28 | 0.44 |
| Follow-up | 30.44 (6.73) | 32.07 (5.94) | |||||
| Baseline | 32.62 (4.13) | 0.54 (3.08) | 32.30 (4.47) | 0.09 (2.93) | 0.67 (80) | −0.88–1.77 | 0.50 |
| Follow-up | 33.15 (4.87) | 32.40 (3.96) | |||||
Notes: aP-value of T-tests/Mann Whitney U-test comparing the change in the outcomes between baseline and follow-up in the intervention and control group. bMann Whitney U-test, median and interquartile range reported. Range 18 at the intervention group and 17 at the control group.
Figure 2Realized logging in to modules and completed exercises per adolescent in the intervention group.