Addressing mental illness stigma in German higher education: study protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation of a psychosocial setting-based intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mental illness stigma is associated with a range of negative consequences, such as reduced help-seeking for mental health problems. Since stigma affects individual, social, and structural aspects, multilevel interventions such as the Canadian programme The Working Mind have been proven to be the most effective. Given the solid evidence base for The Working Mind, it is our aim to implement and evaluate culturally adapted versions of the programme in German higher education, targeting students, employees and managers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will evaluate the programme with regard to its effect on mental illness stigma, openness to mental health problems, willingness to seek help, and positive mental health outcomes. Further, we will investigate the programme's effectiveness dependent on gender and personal values, various mechanisms of change, and factors facilitating and hindering implementation. The study uses a sequential explanatory mixed-methods evaluation design (QUAN → qual) that consists of three steps: (1) quasi-experimental online survey with programme participants, (2) focus groups with programme participants, and (3) qualitative interviews with programme stakeholders. The quantitative data collected in step 1 will be analysed using 2×3 analysis of variances and a parallel multiple mediation analysis. The results will inform the qualitative data to be collected in steps 2 and 3, which will be analysed using qualitative content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (Ethics Committee of University Medicine Greifswald; BB 098/23). Participants have to provide written consent before taking part in a focus group or interview. As for the online survey, participants have to give their consent by agreeing to an online data protection form before they can start completing the survey. We will publish central results and the anonymised data in an Open Access Journal. Further, the statistical code will be included as a supplement to the paper(s) documenting the results of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00033523.
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 | 0.043 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.008 |
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".