Mental health services for German university students: acceptance of intervention targets and preference for delivery modes

IF 3.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
F. Kählke, Penelope Hasking, Ann-Marie Küchler, Harald Baumeister
{"title":"Mental health services for German university students: acceptance of intervention targets and preference for delivery modes","authors":"F. Kählke, Penelope Hasking, Ann-Marie Küchler, Harald Baumeister","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2024.1284661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most university students with mental disorders remain untreated. Evaluating the acceptance of intervention targets in mental health treatment, promotion, and prevention, as well as mental health service delivery modes is crucial for reducing potential barriers, increasing healthcare utilization, and efficiently allocating resources in healthcare services.The study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of various intervention targets and delivery modes of mental health care services in German first-year university students.In total, 1,376 first-year students from two German universities from the 2017–2018 multi-center cross-sectional cohort of the StudiCare project, the German arm of the World Mental Health International College Student Survey initiative, completed a web-based survey assessing their mental health. Mental disorder status was based on self-reported data fulfilling the DSM-IV criteria. We report frequencies of accepted delivery modes [categories: group or in-person therapy with on or off campus services, self-help internet- or mobile-based intervention (IMI) with or without coaching, or a combination of a in-person and IMI (blended)]. In a multinomial logistic regression, we estimate correlates of the preference for in-person vs. IMI vs. a combination of both modes (blended) modalities. Additionally, we report frequencies of intervention targets (disorder specific: e.g., social phobia, depressive mood; study-related: test anxiety, procrastination; general well-being: sleep quality, resilience) their association with mental disorders and sex, and optimal combinations of treatment targets for each mental illness.German university students' acceptance is high for in-person (71%–76%), moderate for internet- and mobile-based (45%–55%), and low for group delivery modes (31%–36%). In-person treatment (72%) was preferred over IMI (19%) and blended modalities (9%). Having a mental disorder [odds ratio (OR): 1.56], believing that digital treatments are effective (OR: 3.2), and showing no intention to use services (OR: 2.8) were associated with a preference for IMI compared to in-person modes. Students with prior treatment experience preferred in-person modes (OR: 0.46). In general, treatment targets acceptance was higher among female students and students with mental disorders. However, this was not true for targets with the highest (i.e., procrastination) and the lowest (i.e., substance-use disorder) acceptance. If only two intervention targets were offered, a combination of study-related targets (i.e., procrastination, stress, time management) would reach 85%–88% of the students.In-person services are preferred, yet half of the students consider using IMI, preferably aiming for a combination of at least two study-related intervention targets. Student mental health care services should offer a combination of accepted targets in different delivery modes to maximize service utilization.","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1284661","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most university students with mental disorders remain untreated. Evaluating the acceptance of intervention targets in mental health treatment, promotion, and prevention, as well as mental health service delivery modes is crucial for reducing potential barriers, increasing healthcare utilization, and efficiently allocating resources in healthcare services.The study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of various intervention targets and delivery modes of mental health care services in German first-year university students.In total, 1,376 first-year students from two German universities from the 2017–2018 multi-center cross-sectional cohort of the StudiCare project, the German arm of the World Mental Health International College Student Survey initiative, completed a web-based survey assessing their mental health. Mental disorder status was based on self-reported data fulfilling the DSM-IV criteria. We report frequencies of accepted delivery modes [categories: group or in-person therapy with on or off campus services, self-help internet- or mobile-based intervention (IMI) with or without coaching, or a combination of a in-person and IMI (blended)]. In a multinomial logistic regression, we estimate correlates of the preference for in-person vs. IMI vs. a combination of both modes (blended) modalities. Additionally, we report frequencies of intervention targets (disorder specific: e.g., social phobia, depressive mood; study-related: test anxiety, procrastination; general well-being: sleep quality, resilience) their association with mental disorders and sex, and optimal combinations of treatment targets for each mental illness.German university students' acceptance is high for in-person (71%–76%), moderate for internet- and mobile-based (45%–55%), and low for group delivery modes (31%–36%). In-person treatment (72%) was preferred over IMI (19%) and blended modalities (9%). Having a mental disorder [odds ratio (OR): 1.56], believing that digital treatments are effective (OR: 3.2), and showing no intention to use services (OR: 2.8) were associated with a preference for IMI compared to in-person modes. Students with prior treatment experience preferred in-person modes (OR: 0.46). In general, treatment targets acceptance was higher among female students and students with mental disorders. However, this was not true for targets with the highest (i.e., procrastination) and the lowest (i.e., substance-use disorder) acceptance. If only two intervention targets were offered, a combination of study-related targets (i.e., procrastination, stress, time management) would reach 85%–88% of the students.In-person services are preferred, yet half of the students consider using IMI, preferably aiming for a combination of at least two study-related intervention targets. Student mental health care services should offer a combination of accepted targets in different delivery modes to maximize service utilization.
德国大学生心理健康服务:干预目标的接受程度和对提供模式的偏好
大多数患有精神障碍的大学生仍未得到治疗。评估心理健康治疗、促进和预防方面的干预目标以及心理健康服务提供模式的接受程度,对于减少潜在障碍、提高医疗保健利用率以及有效分配医疗保健服务资源至关重要。本研究旨在评估德国大学一年级学生对各种干预目标和心理保健服务提供模式的接受程度。共有来自两所德国大学的1376名大一学生完成了一项基于网络的调查,评估了他们的心理健康状况,这些学生来自世界心理健康国际大学生调查计划德国分支StudiCare项目的2017-2018年度多中心横断面队列。精神障碍状况以符合 DSM-IV 标准的自我报告数据为基础。我们报告了所接受的治疗模式的频率[类别:校内或校外服务的小组或面对面治疗、基于互联网或移动设备的自助干预(IMI)(带或不带辅导),或面对面治疗和基于互联网或移动设备的干预的组合(混合)]。在多项式逻辑回归中,我们估算了选择面对面模式与 IMI 模式或两种模式相结合(混合)模式的相关性。此外,我们还报告了干预目标的频率(特定疾病:如社交恐惧症、抑郁情绪;学习相关疾病:考试焦虑、拖延症;一般幸福感:睡眠质量、复原力)、与精神障碍和性别的关联,以及针对每种精神疾病的最佳治疗目标组合。与 IMI(19%)和混合模式(9%)相比,面对面治疗(72%)更受青睐。与面对面模式相比,患有精神障碍[几率比(OR):1.56]、认为数字治疗有效(OR:3.2)和无意使用服务(OR:2.8)与偏好 IMI 相关。有过治疗经验的学生更倾向于面对面治疗模式(OR:0.46)。一般来说,女生和有精神障碍的学生对治疗目标的接受度更高。然而,对于接受度最高的目标(即拖延症)和接受度最低的目标(即药物滥用障碍),情况并非如此。如果只提供两个干预目标,那么与学习相关的目标(即拖延症、压力、时间管理)的组合将达到 85%-88% 的学生的接受程度。尽管有一半的学生考虑使用 IMI,但他们更倾向于选择与学习相关的至少两个干预目标的组合。学生心理保健服务应在不同的提供模式下提供可接受的目标组合,以最大限度地提高服务利用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信