Web-Based Formal Versus Informal Mindfulness Programs for University Students With and Those Without Recent Self-Injury: Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Mindfulness-based programming (MBP) is increasingly being implemented within university settings to support students' mental health, and it typically includes the instruction of formal mindfulness (FM) and informal mindfulness (IM) activities. However, recent evidence suggests that university students with a history of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) may experience challenges in response to FM (eg, physical or psychological discomfort), whereas the flexibility and brevity inherent in IM may be better tolerated. Objective: This randomized controlled trial compared web-based FM and IM programs to each other and to an inactive control condition in terms of (1) effectiveness and (2) acceptability as a function of NSSI history (NSSI or no NSSI) and time (1 week after the program or 1 month after the program). Indices of effectiveness included dispositional mindfulness, well-being, perceived stress, psychological need satisfaction, emotion regulation styles, and academic engagement. Methods: Participants were university students with (n=127) and those without (n=100) past-year NSSI engagement. All procedures were conducted online. Once informed consent was obtained and eligibility was confirmed, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: FM program, IM program, or inactive control condition. One week before the FM and IM programs commenced, all participants completed a baseline survey assessing all indices of effectiveness. Participants assigned to the FM and IM conditions then attended hour-long mindfulness program group sessions once per week over 4 consecutive weeks, while those assigned to the inactive control condition did not complete any study tasks during this time. Mindfulness program sessions were hosted on the videoconference platform Webex. The same survey completed at baseline was completed again 1 week and 1 month following the intervention period, with added acceptability measures for those who took part in the FM and IM programs. Results: Overall, the results did not differ as a function of NSSI history. A series of 3-way analyses of covariance revealed that both the FM and IM programs were effective at improving dispositional mindfulness (P<.001; ηp2=0.07), nonjudging (P=.03; ηp2=0.04), describing (P=.007; ηp2=0.05), well-being (P=.04; ηp2=0.03), and psychological need satisfaction (P=.005; ηp2=0.05) immediately after the program, with these improvements sustained 1 month later. Neither program resulted in improved awareness, nonreacting, observing, stress, emotion regulation styles, or academic engagement (all P>.05). Moreover, 3-way ANOVAs revealed high acceptability of both the FM and IM programs, with a preference for IM immediately after the program (P=.03; ηp2=0.03). Conclusions: The findings of this study underscore the effectiveness and acceptability of the FM and IM programs to MBP in the university context, as well as the potential value of explicitly teaching and similarly emphasizing both FM and IM, an approach that may be optimally responsive to diverse needs and preferences among students.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».