Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41323496›Full record

ArticlePsychological studies2025

Development, Acceptability and Engagement with the Mind Tutor: Lessons Learned from Testing a Novel Digital Application for First Year UK Undergraduate Student Wellbeing.

Emma L Davies, Natalie Wilde, Oliver Lennon, Alan Beck, Hazel Messenger, Kat Sergiou, Sarah E Hennelly, Christian Ehrlich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Emma L DaviesCentre for Psychological Research, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Headington, Oxford, OX3 0BP UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3577-3276
Natalie WildeCentre for Psychological Research, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Headington, Oxford, OX3 0BP UK.ORCID 0009-0000-1829-4906
Oliver LennonSyndeo Ltd, Syndeo House, 299 Ormeau Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT7 3GG UK.
Alan BeckSyndeo Ltd, Syndeo House, 299 Ormeau Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT7 3GG UK.
Hazel MessengerLondon Metropolitan University, 166-220 Holloway Rd, London, N7 8DB UK.
Kat SergiouLondon Metropolitan University, 166-220 Holloway Rd, London, N7 8DB UK.
Sarah E HennellyCentre for Psychological Research, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Headington, Oxford, OX3 0BP UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2417-6468
Christian EhrlichOxford Brookes Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Oxford, OX3 0BP UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3433-0695

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

University student wellbeing has been declining in recent years, leading to increased demand for universities to provide support services. This paper aims to describe the development process of a novel chatbot enhanced app for student wellbeing, the Mind Tutor, and to evaluate the acceptability of this app. The paper also serves to provide multiple lessons learned from the development process and the testing of the app, which will be of use to other researchers in the field. Mind Tutor was developed with input from students and university service stakeholders. Findings from the development process suggested that the app should focus content on anxiety, mood, managing academic work, transitions and balance and relationships. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) within the app were information provision, goal setting, mindfulness, skills/actions and reframing. Mind Tutor content relating to transitions appeared to be the most acceptable to students; however, engagement with the app was poor (two interactions per student). Although universities are keen to offer app-based wellbeing support to students, and students may like such tools, our study demonstrates that low engagement may impact the efficacy of such tools. Considerations for future research are discussed, including the practicality of randomised controlled trials, better integration with existing support services and integration with learning and teaching platforms. The paper also advocates for greater use of co-production methods, and the need to ensure appropriate face-to-face support is not superseded by digital technology.

Indexed as

ChatbotIntervention developmentTransitionsUndergraduate studentsWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID41323496
PMCPMC12662940

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.