Acceptability and Feasibility of Online Support Groups for Mental Health Promotion in Brazilian Graduate Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 aggravated already existing difficulties and added new challenges for students. Owing to the gap between needed and available psychological services, group interventions may offer a helpful strategy for student mental health promotion. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the acceptability and feasibility of a 4-week online support group program designed for mental health promotion tailored to graduate students at a Brazilian public university in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (May 2022 to June 2022). METHODS: Participants in the program took part in online support groups based on a pilot group facilitated by a trained clinical psychologist. Self-administered, standardized web-based questionnaires were assessed at the baseline (T0; before the intervention), postintervention (T2), and follow-up (T3; after 4-6 weeks) time points. We measured sociodemographic variables, treatment credibility and expectancy (Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire), satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), negative effects of the intervention (Negative Effects Questionnaire), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]), and participants' quality of life (abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment). A 9-answer option questionnaire and open-ended questions also assessed the group's perceived positive and negative outcomes. RESULTS: The total sample comprised 32 participants. Most (23/32, 72%) were doctoral students. Credibility and expectancy scores were high. Participants' satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire) with the program was high at the postintervention (T2) and follow-up (T3) evaluations (T2: mean 28.66, SD 3.02; T3: mean 27.91, SD 3.02). Most participants reported that they could learn from other participants' experiences (T2: 29/32, 91%; T3: 27/32, 84%) and felt encouraged to take better care of themselves (T2: 22/32, 69%; T3: 24/32, 75%). None of the participants reported that they had no benefits from the program. The PHQ-9 scores showed mild to moderate depressive symptoms (mean 9.59, SD 6.34), whereas the answers of 9% (3/32) of the participants to the PHQ-9 item 9 indicated suicidality at baseline (T0). Finally, the 4 domains of quality of life (physical: P=.01; psychological: P=.004; social: P=.02; and environmental: P<.001) showed a slight and statistically significant improvement at the postintervention evaluation (T0: mean 57.03, SD 15.39 to 59.64, SD 17.21; T2: mean 64.32, SD 11.97 to 68.75, SD 8.87). CONCLUSIONS: Online support groups for the mental health promotion of graduate students are feasible and can be especially useful for universities with students allocated to different cities. They are also satisfactory and may positively influence participants' quality of life. Therefore, they can be considered a helpful mental health promotion strategy in the educational context. Further studies could evaluate these (or similar) programs under nonpandemic circumstances.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".