Increasing resiliency and reducing mental illness stigma in post-secondary students: A meta-analytic evaluation of the inquiring mind program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Worsening student mental health, along with more complex mental illness presentation and increased access to campus mental health services, has led to a mental health “crisis” on campuses. One way to address student mental health needs may be through mental health programs which have been found to increase resiliency and help-seeking, and reduce stigma. Participants: The effectiveness of The Inquiring Mind (TIM), a mental health promotion and mental illness stigma reduction program, was examined in 810 students from 16 Canadian post-secondary institutions. Methods and Results: Using a meta-analytic approach, TIM improved resiliency and decreased stigmatizing attitudes from pre to post, with medium effect sizes (d > .50). Analyses with those that completed the follow-up (about one-third of the sample) showed that effects were mostly retained at three months. Other outcomes also point to the program’s effectiveness. Conclusion: TIM appears to be an effective program for post-secondary students. However, additional research, including randomized control trials, is needed to address study limitations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".