CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesDigital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and Access

Development and pilot evaluation of an online psychoeducational program for suicide prevention among university students: a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Han, Jin, Batterham, Philip J., Calear, Alison L., Wu, Yang, Xue, Jing, van Spijker, Bregje A.J.·2018·Internet Interventions
DOI 10.1016/j.invent.2017.11.002PMC PMC6096328
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction Suicide is the second leading cause of death for the university aged population globally. A significant proportion of students with suicidal ideation or behaviours do not seek professional help. Few primary suicide prevention programs have specifically targeted help seeking for suicidal ideation or behaviours among university students. Methods This study reported the development and pilot test of a brief, two-module online psychoeducational program ( ProHelp ) that aimed to encourage help seeking for suicidal ideation and behaviours among university students. The program consists of two five-minute modules that address the risk factors and warning signs of suicide, stigmatising attitudes, and perceived barriers to help seeking. 156 Chinese university students and 101 Australian university students were recruited to evaluate the effectiveness of this program at post-test and one-month follow-up. Participants were randomly assigned to the psychoeducational program or an attention control program. Results Of the Chinese and Australian students who were randomised into the study, around 50% completed the two­day post­test survey, and 30% completed the one-month follow­up survey. Although no significant difference was found between the control and experimental group on professional help-seeking beliefs and intentions, both groups' help-seeking attitudes increased during the study ( p = 0.003 for the post­test survey, and p = 0.008 for the follow­up survey). The experimental group in both countries demonstrated a significant improvement in suicide literacy at the post-test survey ( p = 0.015) compared to control. Qualitative feedback indicated that the ProHelp program was user-friendly, clear, and helpful. Conclusions This study provides initial evidence that a brief online psychoeducational program could enhance university students' suicide literacy in both China and Australia. It also suggests that increasing suicide literacy might not be sufficient to improve students' help seeking, although effect sizes indicated that this low­intensity online approach shows promise in encouraging more positive beliefs towards help seeking and preparedness to help individuals with suicidal ideation among young people.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.invent.2017.11.002

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A sample size of 189 for each condition (total N=378) will be required to detect the expected effect size with a power of 0.80 and alpha of .05, based on an attrition rate of 30% and a 0.50 correlation between pre- and posttest scores.

    “Based on an attrition rate of 30% [28,29] and a 0.50 correlation between pre- and posttest scores of the primary outcome, a sample size of 189 for each condition (total N=378) will be required to detect the expected effect size with a power of 0.80 and alpha of .05.”

    From A mobile health intervention (LifeBuoy App) to help young people manage suicidal thoughts: protocol for a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [28]

    The citation is attached to the assumed 30% attrition rate. The cited paper’s Methods > Sample size section instead specifies an expected drop-out rate of 20%; it does not support the cited assumption of 30%. Page number is unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Other studies providing local resources found mixed findings on help-seeking attitudes, intentions and behaviour.

    “other studies (22, 33, 34) providing local resources found mixed findings on help-seeking attitudes, intentions and behaviour.”

    From The impact of digital interventions on help-seeking behaviour for mental health problems: a systematic literature review (2022) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Introduction (Development of the “ProHelp” program; page unavailable) says the program provided sources of help in Australia and China. The Results (Primary outcomes; page unavailable) report no significant intervention effect on help-seeking beliefs, attitudes or intentions, although attitudes improved over time in both groups. The Methods (Measures; page unavailable) list beliefs, attitudes and intentions as outcomes, but not actual help-seeking behaviour, so the behaviour part of the claim is unsupported by this study. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Han, J., Batterham, P. J., Calear, A. L., Wu, Y., Xue, J., & van Spijker, B. A. J.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Han, Jin
ORCID
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
12
Pages
111-120
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.invent.2017.11.002
PMC
PMC6096328
OpenAlex
W2767616083
Cited by
47
References
71
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
3.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1083311, 1122544)
  • Centre of Research Excellence (1042580)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
suicide prevention, university students, suicidal ideation, help-seeking, suicide literacy, stigma, help-seeking barriers, cross-cultural comparison, China, Australia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review