Cited by 108Digital Mental Health InterventionsEducational Games and GamificationMental Health Treatment and Access

An evaluation of 'Reach Out Central': an online gaming program for supporting the mental health of young people

Shandley, K., Austin, D., Klein, B., Kyrios, M.·2010·Health Education Research

Abstract

The objective of this study was to conduct an evaluation of Reach Out Central (ROC), an online gaming program designed to support the mental health of people aged 16-25. The evaluation sought to determine the benefit of playing ROC on alcohol use, use of coping strategies, psychological distress, resilience and satisfaction with life. Changes in mental health literacy, mental health stigma and willingness to seek help and program satisfaction were also investigated. A single group (N = 266) quasi-experimental repeated measures (pre-, post-program, 2-month follow-up) design was employed. The results demonstrated positive improvements across all outcome measures for females; however, a non-significant worsening effect was observed for males on seeking support, avoidance and resilience. Improvements for both genders were observed on mental health literacy and help-seeking. However, literacy levels and help-seeking were significantly higher, and stigma significantly lower for females. Program satisfaction ratings were high irrespective of gender. Although some inconsistencies between genders were noted, ROC appears to enhance protective factors for the prevention or early intervention of mental health disorders. The results of this study need to be viewed with its limitations in mind, specifically, the use of an open trial methodology and the small number of male participants.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/her/cyq002

Cites

39 of 39 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
Shandley, K., Austin, D., Klein, B., & Kyrios, M.
Affiliations
Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Shandley, K.
Venue
Health Education Research
Published
2010-02-11
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
563-574
ISSN
  • 0268-1153 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3648
OpenAlex
W2118841418
Cited by
108
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Education Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • FedUni ResearchOnline (Federation University Australia) (submittedVersion)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
mental health promotion, youth, mental health literacy, mental health stigma, help-seeking, coping strategies, resilience, psychological distress, gender differences, program satisfaction, alcohol consumption, early intervention
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Adult, Alcoholism, Consumer Behavior, Female, Health Education, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Personal Satisfaction, Prejudice, Sex Factors, Stress, Psychological, Health Behavior, Internet, Young Adult, Health Literacy

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