Cited by 73Digital Mental Health InterventionsMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsStudent Stress and Coping

Using online interventions to deliver college student mental health resources: Evidence from randomized clinical trials.

Nguyen-Feng, Viann N., Greer, Christiaan S., Frazier, Patricia·2017·Psychological Services

Abstract

This study evaluated the efficacy of Internet-based stress management programs for college students. This approach is particularly fitting for students owing to a lack of mental health resources on campus and to high levels of Internet use among students. Because a history of interpersonal trauma (IPT) is associated with more distress and poorer academic performance, IPT history was assessed as a moderator of intervention efficacy. Students (N = 365) were randomly assigned to a mindfulness plus present control intervention, a mindfulness only intervention, or a stress management information condition that served as an active comparison. Prior research has supported the efficacy of the mindfulness plus present control intervention (Nguyen-Feng et al., 2015). Outcome measures were self-report measures of stress, anxiety, depression, and perceived stress completed online at preintervention, postintervention, and 2 follow-ups (2-3 weeks and 4-5 weeks postintervention). Linear mixed modeling was used to assess change over time. Participants in all 3 groups reported significant decreases on all primary outcomes. All time-by-intervention group interaction effects were nonsignificant, suggesting that the 3 conditions were equally effective. When examining IPT history as a moderator, the mindfulness plus present control and stress management conditions were both more effective for IPT survivors than the mindfulness only intervention. Results suggested that Internet-based interventions are effective for lowering distress among college students and that specific approaches may be differentially effective for certain subgroups of students. They also suggested that providing students with stress management information without providing training in 1 specific skill may also be helpful. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ser0000154

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen-Feng, V. N., Greer, C. S., & Frazier, P.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Psychological Services
Published
2017-11
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
481-489
ISSN
  • 1541-1559 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-148X
OpenAlex
W2767554345
Cited by
73
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
6.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
Keywords
online intervention, college student mental health, stress management, mindfulness, interpersonal trauma, trauma survivors, anxiety, depression, perceived stress, intervention efficacy, treatment moderators
MeSH terms
Psychological Trauma, Adult Survivors of Child Adverse Events, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Stress, Psychological, Student Health Services, Students, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Internet, Young Adult, Mindfulness

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