Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39888663›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2025

Investigating the Efficacy of the Web-Based Common Elements Toolbox (COMET) Single-Session Interventions in Improving UK University Student Well-Being: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Jeffrey Lambert, Maria Loades, Noah Marshall, Nina Higson-Sweeney, Stella Chan, Arif Mahmud, Victoria Pile, Ananya Maity, Helena Adam, Beatrice Sung and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05718141 (An Online Wellness Intervention for University Students), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05718141 nacompletednot on this map

An Online Wellness Intervention for University Students: Investigating the Efficacy of The Common Elements Toolbox in the UK

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BathRan2021 to 2023Enrolled346ConditionsMental Health Wellness 1ArmsCOMET-GB
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

14 authors.

Jeffrey Lambert *Department for Health, Universtiy of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4774-9054
Maria Loades *Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0839-3190
Noah MarshallDepartment for Health, Universtiy of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0003-3625-3608
Nina Higson-SweeneyDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6926-0463
Stella ChanSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4088-4528
Arif MahmudSchool of Education, University of Roehampton, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2125-4723
Victoria PileDepartment of Psychology, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9177-2844
Ananya MaityDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0009-6886-9128
Helena AdamDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9702-3289
Beatrice SungDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0000-9988-0703
Melanie LuximonDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0002-6855-6745
Keren MacLennanSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3148-3450
Clio BerryBrighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1164-9836
Paul ChadwickDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6765-6325

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMental health problems in university students are associated with many negative outcomes, yet there is a gap between need and timely access to help. Single-session interventions (SSIs) are designed to be scalable and accessible, delivering core evidence-based intervention components within a one-off encounter.

objectiveCOMET (Common Elements Toolbox) is an online self-help SSI that includes behavioral activation, cognitive restructuring, gratitude, and self-compassion. COMET has previously been evaluated in India, Kenya, and the United States with promising results. This study tests the acceptability, appropriateness, perceived utility, and efficacy of COMET among UK university students during the peripandemic period.

methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of COMET compared with a control group, with 2- and 4-week follow-ups. Outcome variables were subjective well-being, depression severity, anxiety severity, positive affect, negative affect, and perceived stress. We also measured intervention satisfaction immediately after completion of COMET. All UK university students with access to the internet were eligible to participate and were informed of the study online. The data were analyzed using linear mixed models and reported in accordance with the CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Applications and Online Telehealth) checklist.

resultsOf the 831 people screened, 468 participants were randomized to a condition, 407 completed the postintervention survey, 147 returned the 2-week follow-up survey, 118 returned the 4-week follow-up survey, and 89 returned both. Of the 239 randomized, 212 completed COMET. Significant between-group differences in favor of the COMET intervention were observed at 2-week follow-ups for subjective well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale; mean difference [MD] 1.39, 95% CI 0.19-2.61; P=.03), depression severity (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire; MD -1.31, 95% CI -2.51 to -0.12; P=.03), and perceived stress (4-item Perceived Stress Scale; MD -1.33, 95% CI -2.10 to -0.57; P<.001). Overall, participants were satisfied with COMET, with the majority endorsing the intervention and its modules as acceptable, appropriate, and exhibiting high utility. The self-compassion module was most often reported as the participants' favorite module and the behavioral activation module was their least favorite. Qualitative analysis revealed that participants found COMET generally accessible, but too long, and experienced immediate and long-term beneficial effects.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated high engagement with the COMET intervention, along with preliminary short-term efficacy. Almost all participants completed the intervention, but study attrition was high. Participant feedback indicated a high level of overall satisfaction with the intervention, with perceived accessibility, immediate benefits, and potential long-term impact being notable findings. These findings support the potential value of COMET as a mental health intervention and highlight important areas for further improvement.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05718141; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05718141.

Indexed as

InternetInternet-Based InterventionStudentsAdultFemaleHumansMaleUnited KingdomUniversitiesYoung AdultCommon Elements Toolboxmental well-beingonline interventionssingle-session interventionsuniversity students

Identifiers

PMID39888663
PMCPMC11829182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.