| Title |
What’s wrong with John? a randomised controlled trial of Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training with nursing students
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-017-1278-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharyn Burns, Gemma Crawford, Jonathan Hallett, Kristen Hunt, Hui Jun Chih, P.J. Matt Tilley |
| Abstract |
The prevalence of mental health problems have been found to be higher among university students compared to their non-student peers. Nursing students in particular face a range of additional stressors which may impact their undergraduate performance and their careers. Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) aims to increase mental health literacy and to reduce stigma and may positively impact on the student population. This paper describes a MHFA randomised controlled trial targeting nursing students at a large Australian university. This study aimed to measure the impact of the MHFA course on mental health literacy, mental health first aid intentions, confidence in helping someone with a mental health problem and stigmatising attitudes including social distance. Participants were first year nursing students (n = 181) randomly allocated to the intervention (n = 92) or control (n = 89) group. Intervention group participants received the standardised MHFA course for nursing students. Online self-report questionnaires were completed at three time intervals: baseline (one week prior to the intervention: T1) (n = 140), post intervention (T2) (n = 120), and two months post intervention (T3) (n = 109). Measures included demographics, mental health knowledge, recognition of depression, confidence in helping, mental health first aid intentions and stigmatising attitudes including social distance. Repeated measures ANOVA was computed to measure if the impact of time (T1, T2, T3) and group (intervention and control) on the outcome variables. There was a significant improvement among intervention compared to control group participants across the three time periods for knowledge scores (p < 0.001), confidence in helping (p < 0.001), mental health first aid intentions (p < 0.001), total personal stigma (p < 0.05), personal dangerous/unpredictable stigma (p < 0.05) and social distance (p < 0.05) scores. MHFA is useful training to embed in university courses and has the potential to enhance mental health literacy and reduce stigmatising attitudes and social distance. While this course has particular salience for nursing and other health science students, there are broader benefits to the general university population that should be considered and opportunities accordingly explored for all students to complete the course. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000861651 . Retrospectively registered 11 August 2014. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 317 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 317 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 47 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 10% |
| Researcher | 28 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 49 | 15% |
| Unknown | 107 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 63 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 58 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 7% |
| Unknown | 113 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2022.
All research outputs
#2,219,112
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#833
of 5,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,752
of 315,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#24
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.