van Agteren Joep, Ali Kathina, Fassnacht Daniel B, Iasiello Matthew, Furber Gareth, Howard Alexis, Woodyatt Lydia, Musker Michael, Kyrios Mike
Wellbeing and Resilience Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
Órama Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
JMIR Ment Health. 2021 Sep 15;8(9):e28044. doi: 10.2196/28044.
During COVID-19, the psychological distress and well-being of the general population has been precarious, increasing the need to determine the impact of complementary internet-based psychological interventions on both positive mental health as well as distress states. Psychological distress and mental well-being represent distinct dimensions of our mental health, and congruent changes in outcomes of distress and well-being do not necessarily co-occur within individuals. When testing intervention impact, it is therefore important to assess change in both outcomes at the individual level, rather than solely testing group differences in average scores at the group level.
This study set out to investigate the differential impact of an internet-based group mental health intervention on outcomes of positive mental health (ie, well-being, life satisfaction, resilience) and indicators of psychological distress (ie, depression, anxiety, stress).
A 5-week mental health intervention was delivered to 89 participants using the Zoom platform during 2020. Impact on outcomes of distress, well-being, and resilience was assessed at the start and end of the program with multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) and reliable change indices (RCIs) being used to determine program impact at the group and individual levels, respectively.
The intervention significantly improved all mental health outcomes measured, (F=5.60, P<.001; Wilks Λ=.71; partial η=.29) showing small to moderate effect sizes on individual outcomes. The largest effect sizes were observed for life satisfaction and overall well-being (η=.22 and η=.2, respectively). Larger effect sizes were noted for those with problematic mental health scores at baseline. A total of 92% (82/89) of participants demonstrated reliable change in at least one mental health outcome. Differential response patterns using RCI revealed that more than one-half of the participants showed improvement in both mental well-being and psychological distress, over one-quarter in outcomes of well-being only, and almost one-fifth in distress only.
The results provide evidence for the significant impact of an internet-based mental health intervention during COVID-19 and indicate the importance of assessing dimensions of both well-being and distress when determining mental health intervention effectiveness.
在2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)疫情期间,普通人群的心理困扰和幸福感一直不稳定,因此愈发需要确定基于互联网的辅助心理干预措施对积极心理健康以及困扰状态的影响。心理困扰和心理健康代表了我们心理健康的不同维度,困扰和幸福感结果的一致变化不一定在个体中同时出现。因此,在测试干预效果时,重要的是在个体层面评估两个结果的变化,而不是仅在组水平测试平均得分的组间差异。
本研究旨在调查基于互联网的团体心理健康干预对积极心理健康结果(即幸福感、生活满意度、心理韧性)和心理困扰指标(即抑郁、焦虑、压力)的不同影响。
2020年期间,使用Zoom平台对89名参与者进行了为期5周的心理健康干预。在项目开始和结束时,通过多变量方差分析(MANOVA)评估对困扰、幸福感和心理韧性结果的影响,并分别使用可靠变化指数(RCI)在组水平和个体水平确定项目效果。
干预显著改善了所有测量的心理健康结果,(F=5.60,P<.001;威尔克斯Λ=.71;偏η=.29),对个体结果显示出小到中等的效应量。生活满意度和总体幸福感的效应量最大(分别为η=.22和η=.2)。基线心理健康得分有问题的参与者效应量更大。共有92%(82/89)的参与者在至少一项心理健康结果上表现出可靠变化。使用RCI的差异反应模式显示,超过一半的参与者在心理幸福感和心理困扰方面均有改善,超过四分之一的参与者仅在幸福感结果方面有改善,近五分之一的参与者仅在困扰方面有改善。
结果为基于互联网的心理健康干预在COVID-19疫情期间的显著影响提供了证据,并表明在确定心理健康干预效果时评估幸福感和困扰维度的重要性。