A Group-Facilitated, Internet-Based Intervention to Promote Mental Health and Well-Being in a Vulnerable Population of University Students: Randomized Controlled Trial of the Be Well Plan Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A growing literature supports the use of internet-based interventions to improve mental health outcomes. However, most programs target specific symptoms or participant groups and are not tailored to facilitate improvements in mental health and well-being or do not allow for needs and preferences of individual participants. The Be Well Plan, a 5-week group-facilitated, internet-based mental health and well-being group intervention addresses these gaps, allowing participants to select a range of activities that they can tailor to their specific characteristics, needs, and preferences. Objective This study aims to test whether the Be Well Plan program was effective in improving primary outcomes of mental well-being, resilience, anxiety, and depression compared to a waitlist control group during the COVID-19 pandemic; secondary outcomes included self-efficacy, a sense of control, and cognitive flexibility. The study further seeks to examine participants’ engagement and satisfaction with the program. Methods A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted with 2 parallel arms, an intervention and a waitlist control group. The intervention involved 5 weekly 2-hour sessions, which were facilitated in group format using Zoom videoconferencing software. University students were recruited via social media posts, lectures, emails, flyers, and posters. Results Using an intentional randomization 2:1 allocation strategy, we recruited 215 participants to the trial (n=126, 58.6%, intervention group; n=89, 41.4%, waitlist control group). Of the 126 participants assigned to the intervention group, 75 (59.5%) commenced the program and were included in modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analyses. mITT intervention participants attended, on average, 3.41 sessions (SD 1.56, median 4); 55 (73.3%) attended at least 4 sessions, and 25 (33.3%) attended all 5 sessions. Of the 49 intervention group participants who completed the postintervention assessment, 47 (95.9%) were either very satisfied (n=31, 66%) or satisfied (n=16, 34%). The mITT analysis for well-being (F1,162=9.65, P=.002, Cohen d=0.48) and resilience (F1,162=7.85, P=.006, Cohen d=0.44) showed significant time × group interaction effects, suggesting that both groups improved over time, but the Be Well Plan (intervention) group showed significantly greater improvement compared to the waitlist control group. A similar pattern of results was observed for depression and anxiety (Cohen d=0.32 and 0.37, respectively), as well as the secondary outcomes (self-efficacy, Cohen d=0.50; sense of control, Cohen d=0.42; cognitive flexibility, Cohen d=0.65). Larger effect sizes were observed in the completer analyses. Reliable change analysis showed that the majority of mITT participants (58/75, 77.3%) demonstrated a significant reliable improvement in at least 1 of the primary outcomes. Conclusions The Be Well Plan program was effective in improving mental health and well-being, including mental well-being, resilience, depression, and anxiety. Participant satisfaction scores and attendance indicated a high degree of engagement and satisfaction with the program. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000180819; https://tinyurl.com/2p8da5sk
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".