The effectiveness and acceptability of formal versus informal mindfulness among university students with and without recent nonsuicidal self-injury: Protocol for an online, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based programming comprising both formal (FM) and informal (IM) mindfulness practice is increasingly offered to university students. However, difficulties with emotion regulation, self-criticism, and a potentially complex relationship with their body may undermine the benefits of FM for students with a history of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI), given its requirement of sustained attention on thoughts, emotions, and bodily sensations. IM may be better tolerated by these students. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial comparing a brief FM practice, a brief IM practice, and an active control task in university students with and without recent NSSI. METHODS: Recruitment began in November 2022. An online, parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial will compare a 10-min, single-session FM practice, a 10-min, single session IM practice, and a 10-min, single session active control task in university students with and without recent NSSI. Outcomes will be assessed immediately pre-intervention and within five minutes post-intervention. The primary outcome will be state mindfulness. Secondary outcomes will be state stress, state well-being, and acceptability. Students with a history of NSSI are expected to report (i) greater improvements in state mindfulness, stress, and well-being, and (ii) greater acceptability in the IM condition, relative to the FM and control conditions. This distinction is not expected to occur in the no-NSSI comparison group. CONCLUSION: This trial is the first to parse out the impacts of FM versus IM practice among university students with and without a history of self-injury. Findings will be relevant to academic and clinical audiences within university settings.

Peer-Presented Versus Mental Health Service Provider-Presented Mental Health Outreach Programs for University Students: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: University students are reporting concerning levels of mental health distress and challenges. University mental health service provider initiatives have been shown to be effective in supporting students' mental health, but these services are often resource-intensive. Consequently, new approaches to service delivery, such as web-based and peer support initiatives, have emerged as cost-effective and efficient approaches to support university students. However, these approaches have not been sufficiently evaluated for effectiveness or acceptability in university student populations. OBJECTIVE: Thus, the overarching goal of this study was to evaluate a mental health service provider-presented versus peer-presented web-based mental health resilience-building video outreach program against a wait-list comparison group. METHODS: Participants were 217 undergraduate students (mean age 20.44, SD 1.98 years; 171/217, 78.8% women) who were randomly assigned to one of the intervention groups (mental health service provider-presented: 69/217, 31.8%; peer-presented: 73/217, 33.6%) or the wait-list comparison group (75/217, 34.6%). Participants in the intervention groups were asked to watch 3 brief skill-building videos addressing strategies for building mental health resilience, whereas the comparison group was wait-listed. The mental health service provider-presented and peer-presented video series were identical in content, with presenters using a script to ensure consistency across delivery methods, but the videos differed in that they were either presented by mental health service providers or university students (peers). All participants were asked to complete web-based self-report measures of stress, coping self-efficacy, social support, social connectedness, mindfulness, and quality of life at baseline (time 1), 6 weeks later (time 2, after the intervention), and 1-month follow-up (time 3). RESULTS: Results from a series of 2-way ANOVAs found no significant differences in outcomes among any of the 3 groups. Surprisingly, a main effect of time revealed that all students improved on several well-being outcomes. In addition, results for program satisfaction revealed that both the mental health service provider-presented and peer-presented programs were rated very highly and at comparable levels. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, findings suggest that a web-based mental health resilience-building video outreach program may be acceptable for university students regardless of it being mental health service provider-presented or peer-presented. Furthermore, the overall increases in well-being across groups, which coincided with the onset and early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest an unexpected pattern of response among university students to the early period of the pandemic. Limitations and barriers as well as research implications are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05454592; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05454592.