Online prevention programmes for university students: stakeholder perspectives from six European countries.
Journal
European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 07 2021
07 07 2021
Historique:
entrez:
9
7
2021
pubmed:
10
7
2021
medline:
17
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Students beginning university are at a heightened risk for developing mental health disorders. Online prevention and early intervention programmes targeting mental health have the potential to reduce this risk, however, previous research has shown uptake to be rather poor. Understanding university stakeholders' (e.g. governing level and delivery staff [DS] and students) views and attitudes towards such online prevention programmes could help with their development, implementation and dissemination within university settings. Semi-structured interviews, focus groups and online surveys were completed with staff at a governing level, university students and DS (i.e. student health or teaching staff) from six European countries. They were asked about their experiences with, and needs and attitudes towards, online prevention programmes, as well as the factors that influence the translation of these programmes into real-world settings. Results were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participating stakeholders knew little about online prevention programmes for university settings; however, they viewed them as acceptable. The main themes to emerge were the basic conditions and content of the programmes, the awareness and engagement, the resources needed, the usability and the responsibility and ongoing efforts to increase reach. Overall, although these stakeholders had little knowledge about online prevention programmes, they were open to the idea of introducing them. They could see the potential benefits that these programmes might bring to a university setting as a whole and the individual students and staff members.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Students beginning university are at a heightened risk for developing mental health disorders. Online prevention and early intervention programmes targeting mental health have the potential to reduce this risk, however, previous research has shown uptake to be rather poor. Understanding university stakeholders' (e.g. governing level and delivery staff [DS] and students) views and attitudes towards such online prevention programmes could help with their development, implementation and dissemination within university settings.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews, focus groups and online surveys were completed with staff at a governing level, university students and DS (i.e. student health or teaching staff) from six European countries. They were asked about their experiences with, and needs and attitudes towards, online prevention programmes, as well as the factors that influence the translation of these programmes into real-world settings. Results were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Participating stakeholders knew little about online prevention programmes for university settings; however, they viewed them as acceptable. The main themes to emerge were the basic conditions and content of the programmes, the awareness and engagement, the resources needed, the usability and the responsibility and ongoing efforts to increase reach.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, although these stakeholders had little knowledge about online prevention programmes, they were open to the idea of introducing them. They could see the potential benefits that these programmes might bring to a university setting as a whole and the individual students and staff members.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34240152
pii: 6317464
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckab040
pmc: PMC8495721
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
i64-i70Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.
Références
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Apr 11;14:109
pubmed: 24725765
Med Care Res Rev. 2009 Oct;66(5):522-41
pubmed: 19454625
J Med Internet Res. 2014 May 16;16(5):e130
pubmed: 24836465
Internet Interv. 2017 Jan 25;8:1-9
pubmed: 30135823
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2000 Aug;34(4):619-26
pubmed: 10954393
J Med Internet Res. 2013 May 27;15(5):e101
pubmed: 23711740
Br J Psychol. 2004 Nov;95(Pt 4):509-21
pubmed: 15527535
Internet Interv. 2018 Mar 15;16:35-42
pubmed: 30775263
JMIR Ment Health. 2015 Feb 11;2(1):e2
pubmed: 26543908
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;62(6):593-602
pubmed: 15939837
Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7
pubmed: 10474547
Eur J Public Health. 2021 Jul 7;31(31 Suppl 1):i48-i54
pubmed: 34240158
Glob Health Promot. 2016 Mar;23(1 Suppl):57-65
pubmed: 27199018
Glob Health Promot. 2016 Mar;23(1 Suppl):5-7
pubmed: 27199012
Br J Clin Psychol. 2010 Nov;49(Pt 4):455-71
pubmed: 19799804
J Ment Health. 2012 Aug;21(4):346-54
pubmed: 22315961
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Jun 23;8(2):e10
pubmed: 16867965
Med Care. 2007 Jul;45(7):594-601
pubmed: 17571007
Internet Interv. 2018 Mar 22;16:43-51
pubmed: 30775264
Br J Psychiatry. 2007 Oct;191:335-42
pubmed: 17906244
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Dec;65(12):1429-37
pubmed: 19047530
BMC Psychiatry. 2010 Dec 30;10:113
pubmed: 21192795
Psychol Med. 2014 Nov;44(15):3137-50
pubmed: 25065947
Glob Health Promot. 2016 Mar;23(1 Suppl):46-56
pubmed: 27199017
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 15;9(4):e93621
pubmed: 24736388