MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393221331 · doi:10.2196/54287

Effectiveness of the Minder Mobile Mental Health and Substance Use Intervention for University Students: Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4393221331 on OpenAlexafffund
Melissa Vereschagin, Angel Y Wang, Chris G. Richardson, Hui Xie, Richard J. Munthali, Kristen L. Hudec, Calista Leung, Katharine D. Wojcik, Lonna Munro, Priyanka Halli, Ronald C. Kessler, Daniel Vigo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMental healthAttendanceRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionAnxietyMedicinePopulationmHealthBrief interventionClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: University attendance represents a transition period for students that often coincides with the emergence of mental health and substance use challenges. Digital interventions have been identified as a promising means of supporting students due to their scalability, adaptability, and acceptability. Minder is a mental health and substance use mobile app that was codeveloped with university students. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the effectiveness of the Minder mobile app in improving mental health and substance use outcomes in a general population of university students. METHODS: A 2-arm, parallel-assignment, single-blinded, 30-day randomized controlled trial was used to evaluate Minder using intention-to-treat analysis. In total, 1489 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to the intervention (n=743, 49.9%) or waitlist control (n=746, 50.1%) condition. The Minder app delivers evidence-based content through an automated chatbot and connects participants with services and university social groups. Participants are also assigned a trained peer coach to support them. The primary outcomes were measured through in-app self-assessments and included changes in general anxiety symptomology, depressive symptomology, and alcohol consumption risk measured using the 7-item General Anxiety Disorder scale, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, and US Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption Scale, respectively, from baseline to 30-day follow-up. Secondary outcomes included measures related to changes in the frequency of substance use (cannabis, alcohol, opioids, and nonmedical stimulants) and mental well-being. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to examine each outcome. RESULTS: In total, 79.3% (589/743) of participants in the intervention group and 83% (619/746) of participants in the control group completed the follow-up survey. The intervention group had significantly greater average reductions in anxiety symptoms measured using the 7-item General Anxiety Disorder scale (adjusted group mean difference=-0.85, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.42; P<.001; Cohen d=-0.17) and depressive symptoms measured using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (adjusted group mean difference=-0.63, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.17; P=.007; Cohen d=-0.11). A reduction in the US Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption Scale score among intervention participants was also observed, but it was not significant (P=.23). Statistically significant differences in favor of the intervention group were found for mental well-being and reductions in the frequency of cannabis use and typical number of drinks consumed. A total of 77.1% (573/743) of participants in the intervention group accessed at least 1 app component during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In a general population sample of university students, the Minder app was effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression, with provisional support for increasing mental well-being and reducing the frequency of cannabis and alcohol use. These findings highlight the potential ability of e-tools focused on prevention and early intervention to be integrated into existing university systems to support students' needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05606601; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05606601. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/49364.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.436 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207