Dataset Information

Effects of a Digital Mental Health Program on Perceived Stress in Adolescents Aged 13-17 Years: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stress is an important transdiagnostic risk factor in adolescence and predicts a host of physical and psychological problems in adolescence and adulthood. Adolescence is also a developmental stage in which people may be more sensitive or reactive to stress. Indeed, research has shown that adolescents report high levels of stress, particularly when enrolled in school. However, adolescents report engaging in few, if any, stress management techniques. Consequently, the development of effective programs to help address adolescent stress is particularly important. To date, most stress management programs for adolescents are delivered within schools, and the evidence for such programs is mixed. Furthermore, most of these programs rely on traditional stress management techniques rather than incorporating methods to address the underlying negative cognitive processes, such as rumination, that may contribute to or exacerbate the effects of perceived stress.

Objective

The aim of this study is to test the short-term effects of a digital mental health program designed for adolescents aged 13-17 years on perceived stress and rumination.

Methods

This is a randomized controlled trial in which adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 years, with elevated levels of perceived stress and brooding, will be randomly assigned to complete 8 weeks of a digital mental health program (Happify for Teens) or to a corresponding wait-list control group. The study will take place over 3 months, including the 8-week intervention period and 1-month postintervention follow-up. The primary outcome, perceived stress, along with secondary and exploratory outcomes (ie, brooding, optimism, sleep disturbance, and loneliness) will be assessed via self-report at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks to compare changes in these outcomes across conditions.

Results

Recruitment is expected to begin in the second quarter of 2021, with a target sample size of 800 participants (400 per condition). Participants will begin the study as they are recruited and will finish in waves, with the first wave of data expected 8 weeks after recruitment begins and the final wave of data expected by the end of the third quarter of 2021.

Conclusions

Although school-based stress management programs for adolescents are common, research suggests that they may be limited in their reach and more effective for school-based stress than other types of stress. This trial will be one of the first attempts to examine the potential benefits of a digital mental health program on adolescents to address stress along with negative cognitive processes such as rumination. If successful, this would help introduce a more scalable alternative to school-based programs that offers adolescents greater privacy while also providing insight into novel ways to target adolescent mental health more generally.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04567888; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04567888.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

PRR1-10.2196/25545.

SUBMITTER: Boucher EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094018 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough adolescents report high levels of stress, they report engaging in few stress management techniques. Consequently, developing effective and targeted programs to help address this transdiagnostic risk factor in adolescence is particularly important. Most stress management programs for adolescents are delivered within schools, and the evidence for these programs is mixed, suggesting a need for alternative options for stress management among adolescents.ObjectiveThe aim of the study is to test the short-term effects of a self-guided digital mental health intervention (DMHI) designed for adolescents on perceived stress and rumination (ie, brooding).MethodsThis was a 12-week, 2-arm decentralized randomized controlled trial of adolescents aged 13 to 17 years who presented with elevated levels of perceived stress and brooding. Participants were randomly assigned to engage with a self-guided DMHI (Happify for Teens) or to a waitlist control. Participants assigned to the intervention group were given access to the program for 12 weeks. Happify for Teens consists of various evidence-based activities drawn from therapeutic modalities such as cognitive behavioral therapy, positive psychology, and mindfulness, which are then organized into several programs targeting specific areas of concern (eg, Stress Buster 101). Participants in the waitlist control received access to this product for 12 weeks upon completing the study. Participants in both groups completed measures of perceived stress, brooding, optimism, sleep disturbance, and loneliness at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. Changes in outcomes between the intervention and waitlist control groups were assessed using repeated-measures multilevel models.ResultsOf the 303 participants included in data analyses, 132 were assigned to the intervention and 171 to the waitlist. There were significantly greater improvements in the intervention condition for perceived stress (intervention: B=-1.50; 95% CI -1.82 to -1.19; P<.001 and control: B=-0.09; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.26; P=.61), brooding (intervention: B=-0.84; 95% CI -1.00 to -0.68; P<.001 and control: B=-0.30; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.12; P=.001), and loneliness (intervention: B=-0.96; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.73; P<.001 and control: B=-0.38; 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.12; P=.005) over the 12-week study period. Changes in optimism and sleep disturbance were not significantly different across groups (Ps≥.096).ConclusionsHappify for Teens was effective at reducing perceived stress, rumination, and loneliness among adolescents over 12 weeks when compared to a waitlist control group. Our data reveal the potential benefits of DMHIs for adolescents, which may present a more scalable, destigmatized, and cost-effective alternative to school-based programs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04567888; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04567888.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/25545.

Project description:Three vaccines are recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for routine vaccination of adolescents aged 11-12 years to protect against 1) pertussis; 2) meningococcal disease caused by types A, C, W, and Y; and 3) human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers (1). At age 16 years, a booster dose of quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) is recommended. Persons aged 16-23 years can receive serogroup B meningococcal vaccine (MenB), if determined to be appropriate through shared clinical decision-making. CDC analyzed data from the 2019 National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) to estimate vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13-17 years in the United States.* Coverage with ?1 dose of HPV vaccine increased from 68.1% in 2018 to 71.5% in 2019, and the percentage of adolescents who were up to date† with the HPV vaccination series (HPV UTD) increased from 51.1% in 2018 to 54.2% in 2019. Both HPV vaccination coverage measures improved among females and males. An increase in adolescent coverage with ?1 dose of MenACWY (from 86.6% in 2018 to 88.9% in 2019) also was observed. Among adolescents aged 17 years, 53.7% received the booster dose of MenACWY in 2019, not statistically different from 50.8% in 2018; 21.8% received ?1 dose of MenB, a 4.6 percentage point increase from 17.2% in 2018. Among adolescents living at or above the poverty level,§ those living outside a metropolitan statistical area (MSA)¶ had lower coverage with ?1 dose of MenACWY and with ?1 HPV vaccine dose, and a lower percentage were HPV UTD, compared with those living in MSA principal cities. In early 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic changed the way health care providers operate and provide routine and essential services. An examination of Vaccines for Children (VFC) provider ordering data showed that vaccine orders for HPV vaccine; tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap); and MenACWY decreased in mid-March when COVID-19 was declared a national emergency (Supplementary Figure 1, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/91795). Ensuring that routine immunization services for adolescents are maintained or reinitiated is essential to continuing progress in protecting persons and communities from vaccine-preventable diseases and outbreaks.

Project description:AimIn this study, we aimed to identify the determinants of four different forms of mental health service usage (general health services, school counselling, telephone, and online services), and the number of mental health services accessed (single and multiple) by Australian adolescents aged 13-17 years. We also measured socioeconomic inequality in mental health services' usage following the concentration index approach within the same sample.Subject and methodsThe data came from the nationwide cross-sectional survey, Young Minds Matter (YMM): the second Australian Child and Adolescent Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Random effect models were used to identify the factors associated with four different mental health services and the number of services accessed. Further, the Erreygers' corrected concentration indices for binary variables were used to quantify the socioeconomic inequality in each mental health service. The four services were the general health service (GP, specialist, psychiatrist, psychologist, hospital including emergency), school services, telephone counselling and online services.ResultsOverall, 31.9% of the total analytical sample (n = 2268) aged 13-17 years old visited at least one service, with 21.9% accessing a single service and 10% accessing multiple services. The highest percentage of adolescents used online services (20.1%), followed by general mental health services (18.3%), while school services (2.4%) were the least used service. Age, gender, family type and family cohesion statistically significantly increased the use of general health and multiple mental health service usage (p < 0.05). Area of residence was also found to be a significant factor for online service use. The concentration indices (CIs) were -0.073 (p < 0.001) and -0.032 (p < 0.001) for health and telephone services, respectively, which implies pro-rich socio-economic inequality.ConclusionAdolescents from low-income families frequently used general mental health services and telephone services compared to those who belonged to high-income families. The study concluded that if we want to increase adolescents' usage of mental health services, we need to tailor our approaches to their socioeconomic backgrounds. In addition, from a policy standpoint, a multi-sectoral strategy is needed to address the factors related to mental health services to reduce inequity in service utilisation.

Project description:Soccer players are required to anticipate and react continuously in a changing, relatively unpredictable situation in the field. Cognitive functions might be important to be successful in soccer. The current study investigated the relationship between cognitive functions and performance level in elite and sub-elite youth soccer players aged 13-17 years. A total of 47 elite youth soccer players (mean age 15.5 years, SD = 0.9) and 41 sub-elite youth soccer players (mean age 15.2 years, SD = 1.2) performed tasks for "higher-level" cognitive functions measuring working memory (i.e., Visual Memory Span), inhibitory control (i.e., Stop-Signal Task), cognitive flexibility (i.e., Trail Making Test), and metacognition (i.e., Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Design Fluency Test). "Lower-level" cognitive processes, i.e., reaction time and visuo-perceptual abilities, were also measured with the previous tasks. ANOVA's showed that elite players outscored sub-elite players at the "higher-level" cognitive tasks only, especially on metacognition (p < .05). Using stepwise discriminant analysis, 62.5% of subjects was correctly assigned to one of the groups based on their metacognition, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility performance. Controlling for training hours and academic level, MANCOVA's showed differences in favor of the elite youth soccer players on inhibitory control (p = .001), and cognitive flexibility (p = .042), but not on metacognition (p = .27). No differences were found concerning working memory nor the "lower-level" cognitive processes (p > .05). In conclusion, elite youth soccer players have better inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and especially metacognition than their sub-elite counterparts. However, when training hours are taken into account, differences between elite and sub-elite youth soccer players remain apparent on inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility in contrast to metacognition. This highlights the need for longitudinal studies to further investigate the importance of "higher-level" cognitive functions for talent identification, talent development and performance in soccer.

Project description:Background: Adolescence is an important stage of psychological development, and the psychological and mental problems of many adults are affected by the COVID-19 epidemic. The aim of this study was to understand the psychological status of this group during the epidemic, and to determine the risk factors leading to psychological stress, as well as protective factors. Methods: An online survey was run on April 2, 2020. The participants were 254 adolescents aged 13-16 years from a junior high school in Jiangsu, China. The results were compared with the pre-epidemic data, which came from the psychological status survey routinely carried out by the school. Mental health variables were assessed via the Mental Health Test that included one validity subscale and eight content subscales. Results: The number of adolescents with poor mental health increased significantly from 12.3 to 24.2%. There was significant increase in learning anxiety (33.7 vs. 56.4%), sensitivity tendency (19.8 vs. 46%), somatic anxiety (13.9 vs. 40.7%) and phobia tendency (4.4 vs. 10.1%). During the epidemic, there were significant differences between adolescents with normal and poor mental health in family structure, personality, relationship with siblings, daily exercise time, and risk of family members coming in contact with COVID-19. Living in stem family, no siblings, and risk of contracting COVID-19 from family members were significant risk factors for teenagers with poor mental health. Risk of contracting COVID-19 from family members was the most influential risk factor for learning anxiety, self-blaming tendency, sensitivity tendency, and somatic anxiety. Exercising for ≥1 h per day was a significant protective factor for poor mental health. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 epidemic, adolescents aged 13-16 years have had psychosocial problems, especially learning anxiety, sensitivity tendency, somatic anxiety, and phobia tendency, as well as risk factors for developing them. Our study provides insights for potential interventions.