Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35044304›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

A Brief, Daily, Online Mental Health and Well-being Intervention for University Staff During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Program Description and Outcomes Using a Mixed Methods Design.

Alexandra Parker, Sarah Dash, Matthew Bourke, Rhiannon Patten, Melinda Craike, Peter Baldwin, Warwick Hosking, Itamar Levinger, Vasso Apostolopoulos, Maximilian de Courten and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra ParkerInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2398-6306
Sarah DashInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7694-3027
Matthew BourkeInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7088-4516
Rhiannon PattenInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1655-1849
Melinda CraikeInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7374-1286
Peter BaldwinInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3319-6252
Warwick HoskingInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4707-5483
Itamar LevingerInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9194-2033
Vasso ApostolopoulosInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6788-2771
Maximilian de CourtenMitchell Institute, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9997-9359
Jenny SharplesInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2885-9899
Monika NaslundInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1990-4734
Vasileios StavropoulosInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6964-4662
Mary WoessnerInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7001-8407
Christopher SonnInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6175-1030
Caroline StansenInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7459-6324
Michaela PascoeInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3831-5660
Victoria University · AUAustralian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science · AUBlack Dog Institute · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe unprecedented changes and isolation measures to contain COVID-19 have had multiple psychological and social impacts, with implications for professional and personal functioning. Evidence-informed interventions that can be rapidly implemented under pandemic conditions to support mental health during such times are urgently needed.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the acceptability and preliminary outcomes of a daily online mental health promotion program for tertiary education staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsThe "Victoria University (VU) Elevenses" program was delivered as an uncontrolled intervention at Victoria University (VU) in the western metropolitan region of Melbourne, Australia. In April 2020, an email invitation was sent to all academic and professional staff inviting them to: (1) participate in the program and (2) opt-in to the research component. The "VU Elevenses" program provided 10-15-minute microinterventions comprising lifestyle and well-being strategies to promote mental health via an online meeting platform at 11 AM each weekday. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate the program, combining structured questionnaires with semistructured interviews to investigate the experiences of staff who participated in the program.

resultsBetween 16 and 90 participants provided weekly program feedback. A total of 106 university staff opted into the longitudinal research component and 10 staff participated in the interviews. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with sessions and perceived benefits for mental health. Approximately one quarter of participants reported moderate to severe symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress at baseline, with significant reductions in these symptoms in the first 7 weeks of the program, corresponding with easing in mandatory isolation ("lockdown") restrictions. Symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress all increased when lockdown measures were reintroduced, but not to the same levels as found during the initial lockdown period. Overall changes in depression and anxiety from baseline to the end of the program were explained by changes in COVID-19-related distress, whereas changes in self-compassion explained changes in stress.

conclusionsWe show that it is feasible and acceptable to develop and deliver a program of brief interventions in a timely manner, using a simple and accessible online platform. Although participation in the program was initially associated with reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, participants' mental health worsened with the reintroduction of a "lockdown" period. However, as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress did not return to levels observed at the start of the VU Elevenses program, participation in the uncontrolled intervention may have offered a protective benefit against the impact of the second significant lockdown period.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 pandemichealth promotionmental health promotiononline interventionpandemictelehealthwell-beingworkplace mental health

Identifiers

PMID35044304
PMCPMC8887557
OpenAlexW4205393657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.