استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

University attendance represents a transition period for students that often coincides with the emergence of mental health and substance use challenges. Digital interventions have been identified as a promising means of supporting students due to their scalability, adaptability, and acceptability. Minder is a mental health and substance use mobile app that was codeveloped with university students. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of the Minder mobile app in improving mental health and substance use outcomes in a general population of university students. A 2-arm, parallel-assignment, single-blinded, 30-day randomized controlled trial was used to evaluate Minder using intention-to-treat analysis. In total, 1489 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to the intervention (n=743, 49.9%) or waitlist control (n=746, 50.1%) condition. The Minder app delivers evidence-based content through an automated chatbot and connects participants with services and university social groups. Participants are also assigned a trained peer coach to support them. The primary outcomes were measured through in-app self-assessments and included changes in general anxiety symptomology, depressive symptomology, and alcohol consumption risk measured using the 7-item General Anxiety Disorder scale, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, and US Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption Scale, respectively, from baseline to 30-day follow-up. Secondary outcomes included measures related to changes in the frequency of substance use (cannabis, alcohol, opioids, and nonmedical stimulants) and mental well-being. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to examine each outcome. In total, 79.3% (589/743) of participants in the intervention group and 83% (619/746) of participants in the control group completed the follow-up survey. The intervention group had significantly greater average reductions in anxiety symptoms measured using the 7-item General Anxiety Disorder scale (adjusted group mean difference=-0.85, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.42; P<.001; Cohen d=-0.17) and depressive symptoms measured using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (adjusted group mean difference=-0.63, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.17; P=.007; Cohen d=-0.11). A reduction in the US Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption Scale score among intervention participants was also observed, but it was not significant (P=.23). Statistically significant differences in favor of the intervention group were found for mental well-being and reductions in the frequency of cannabis use and typical number of drinks consumed. A total of 77.1% (573/743) of participants in the intervention group accessed at least 1 app component during the study period. In a general population sample of university students, the Minder app was effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression, with provisional support for increasing mental well-being and reducing the frequency of cannabis and alcohol use. These findings highlight the potential ability of e-tools focused on prevention and early intervention to be integrated into existing university systems to support students' needs. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05606601; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05606601. RR2-10.2196/49364.

Background Minder is a mental health and substance use mobile application found to have a small but significant effects in a recent randomized trial. Poor engagement has been identified as a common threat to the effectiveness of digital mental health tools that is not accounted for in intention-to-treat analyses. The objective of this study is to conduct a prespecified secondary analyses to identify factors associated with engagement and examine the impact of engagement on trial outcomes. Methods 1489 students were randomized to either the intervention ( n  = 743) or waitlist control ( n  = 746). Primary outcomes were changes in anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)), and alcohol consumption (US Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption Scale (USAUDIT-CS)) at 30-days. Secondary outcomes included frequency of substance use and mental wellbeing (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWS)). A Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE) analysis was conducted using 3 separate criteria reflecting differing engagement levels: (1) a binary measure: use of any app component, (2) a continuous measure: number of unique days of app use, and (3) an ordinal measure: number of components accessed within the app. Results 80.4% of participants used at least one app feature. Statistically significant differences were observed in app utilization across gender, ethnicity, having a history of depression or anxiety, higher baseline PHQ-9, higher SWEMWS, and poor/fair overall self-assessed mental and physical health. Any use of Minder was associated with significantly lower scores on the GAD-7 (adjusted group mean difference = − 1.09, 95% CI − 1.60 to − 0.57; P  < .01) and PHQ-9 (adjusted group mean difference = − 0.84, 95% CI − 1.41 to − 0.27; P  < .01) with increasing number of unique utilization days or components accessed associated with increased reductions. Any use of Minder was associated with significantly higher scores on the SWEMWS (adjusted group mean difference = 0.93, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.39; P  < .01) and lower frequency of cannabis use (adjusted group mean difference = − 0.15, 95% CI − 0.23 to − 0.06; P  < .01) with increased app utilization associated with larger improvements. Conclusions The CACE analysis identified significant dose-response relationships indicating that increased use of the Minder app leads to larger effects that can reach levels of clinical significance. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05606601 (November 3, 2022); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05606601 .

Background Estimating the indirect mortality due to COVID-19 is of the utmost importance to develop adequate public health policy during future outbreaks. Methods From province-wide administrative datasets, we identified British Columbians who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first wave and never tested positive throughout 2020. We obtained a pre-pandemic (2018) cohort matched on age, sex, history of non-communicable disorders (NCDs), multimorbidity, and severity/acuity, and implemented a doubly robust estimation of the effect of the first pandemic wave on mortality. Results The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of death was 3.2 times higher for a 2020 cohort who tested negative for COVID-19 ( n  = 123,133), compared to matched pre-pandemic controls. In both cohorts, a majority (72.5%) experienced at least one pre-existing NCD. Stratification by NCD shows an AOR of death ranges between 2–for people with substance use disorders– and 7–for people previously undiagnosed with NCDs (e.g., incident cases that went untreated). The largest subgroup was composed of people with mental disorders (47,413 people), with an AOR of death of 2.5. Though the COVID-19 direct mortality in the general population remained low (1.9 per 10,000), the excess mortality in this COVID-negative cohort was extremely high − 4,085 of the 123,133– which entails a minimum indirect excess mortality death rate of 6.5 per 10,000 in the general population. Conclusions During the first pandemic year, mortality in COVID-negative adults was several times greater than before COVID-19, in people with matched NCD distribution and severity. Our findings suggest that low direct COVID-19 mortality was accompanied by less visible–but much higher– indirect mortality due to undiagnosed and/or untreated NCDs, highlighting the need to focus not only on mitigating the harms of new agents, but also of continuing service delivery for treatable conditions.

Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) contributes to a significant proportion of disease burden, disability, economic losses, and impact on need of treatment and health care in Brazil, but systematic information about its treatment coverage is scarce. This paper aims to estimate the gap in treatment coverage for MDD and identify key bottlenecks in obtaining adequate treatment among adult residents in the São Paulo Metropolitan area, Brazil. Methods A representative face-to-face household survey was conducted among 2942 respondents aged 18+ years to assess 12-month MDD, characteristics of 12-month treatment received, and bottlenecks to deliver care through the World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Results Among those with MDD (n = 491), 164 (33.3% [SE, 1.9]) were seen in health services, with an overall 66.7% treatment gap, and only 25.2% [SE, 4.2] received effective treatment coverage, which represents 8.5% of those in need, with a 91.5% gap in adequate care (66.4% due to lack of utilization and 25.1% due to inadequate quality and adherence). Critical service bottlenecks identified were: use of psychotropic medication (12.2 percentage points drop), use of antidepressants (6.5), adequate medication control (6.8), receiving psychotherapy (19.8). Conclusions This is the first study demonstrating the huge treatment gaps for MDD in Brazil, considering not only overall coverage, but also identifying specific quality- and user-adjusted bottlenecks in delivering pharmacological and psychotherapeutic care. These results call for urgent combined actions focused in reducing effective treatment gaps within services utilization, as well as in reducing gaps in availability and accessibility of services, and acceptability of care for those in need.

Background Mental health service providers are increasingly interested in patient perspectives. We examined rates and predictors of patient-reported satisfaction and perceived helpfulness in a cross-national general population survey of adults with 12-month DSM-IV disorders who saw a provider for help with their mental health. Methods Data were obtained from epidemiological surveys in the World Mental Health Survey Initiative. Respondents were asked about satisfaction with treatments received from up to 11 different types of providers (very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied) and helpfulness of the provider (a lot, some, a little, not at all). We modelled predictors of satisfaction and helpfulness using a dataset of patient-provider observations ( n  = 5,248). Results Most treatment was provided by general medical providers (37.4%), psychiatrists (18.4%) and psychologists (12.7%). Most patients were satisfied or very satisfied (65.9-87.5%, across provider) and helped a lot or some (64.4-90.3%). Spiritual advisors and healers were most often rated satisfactory and helpful. Social workers in human services settings were rated lowest on both dimensions. Patients also reported comparatively low satisfaction with general medical doctors and psychiatrists/psychologists and found general medical doctors less helpful than other providers. Men and students reported lower levels of satisfaction than women and nonstudents. Respondents with high education reported higher satisfaction and helpfulness than those with lower education. Type of mental disorder was unrelated to satisfaction but in some cases (depression, bipolar spectrum disorder, social phobia) was associated with low perceived helpfulness. Insurance was unrelated to either satisfaction or perceived helpfulness but in some cases was associated with elevated perceived helpfulness for a given level of satisfaction. Conclusions Satisfaction with and perceived helpfulness of treatment varied as a function of type of provider, service setting, mental status, and socio-demographic variables. Invariably, caution is needed in combining data from multiple countries where there are cultural and service delivery variations. Even so, our findings underscore the utility of patient perspectives in treatment evaluation and may also be relevant in efforts to match patients to treatments.

Background Perceived need for treatment is a first step along the pathway to effective mental health treatment. Perceived need encompasses a person’s recognition that they have a problem and their belief that professional help is needed to manage the problem. These two components could have different predictors. Methods Respondents aged 18+ years with 12-month mental disorders from 25 representative household surveys in 21 countries in the World Mental Health Survey Initiative (n = 12,508). All surveys included questions about perceived need; 16 surveys (13 countries) included additional questions about respondents’ main reason for perceived need—problem recognition or perceived inability to manage without professional help (n = 9814). Associations of three sets of predictors (disorder, socio-demographics, past treatment) with perceived need and its components were examined using Poisson regression models. Results Across the 16 surveys with additional questions, 42.4% of respondents with a 12-month mental disorder reported perceived need for treatment. In separate multivariable models for each predictor set: (1) Most disorder types (except alcohol use disorder, specific phobia), disorder severity, and number of disorders were associated with perceived need and both of its components; (2) Sociodemographic factors tended to differentially predict either problem recognition (females, 30–59 years, disabled/unemployed) or need for professional help (females, homemakers, disabled/unemployed, public insurance); (3) Past treatment factors (type of professional, psychotherapy, helpful or unhelpful treatment) were associated with perceived need and both components, except number of past professionals differentially predicted problem recognition. In a consolidated model: employment and insurance became non-significant; type and number of past professionals seen became more important; helpful past treatment predicted greater need for professional help while unhelpful treatment predicted lower problem recognition. Problem recognition was the more important component in determining perceived need for some groups (e.g., severe disorder, people who consulted non-mental health professionals). Conclusions Greater clinical need is a key determinant of perceived need for treatment. Findings suggest a need for strategies to address low perceived need (e.g., in males, older people, alcohol use disorders) and lower endorsement of professional treatment in some groups, and to improve patient’s treatment experiences which are important enablers of future help-seeking.

Background Most individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) receive either no care or inadequate care. The aims of this study is to investigate potential determinants of effective treatment coverage. Methods In order to examine obstacles to providing or receiving care, the type of care received, and the quality and use of that care in a representative sample of individuals with MDD, we analyzed data from 17 WHO World Mental Health Surveys conducted in 15 countries (9 high-income and 6 low/middle-income). Of 35,012 respondents, 3341 had 12-month MDD. We explored the association of socio-economic and demographic characteristics, insurance, and severity with effective treatment coverage and its components, including type of treatment, adequacy of treatment, dose, and adherence. Results High level of education (OR = 1.63; 1.19, 2.24), private insurance (OR = 1.62; 1.06, 2.48), and age (30–59yrs; OR = 1.58; 1.21, 2.07) predicted effective treatment coverage for depression in a multivariable logistic regression model. Exploratory bivariate models further indicate that education may follow a dose—response relation; that people with severe depression are more likely to receive any services, but less likely to receive adequate services; and that in low and middle-income countries, private insurance (the only significant predictor) increased the likelihood of receiving effective treatment coverage four times. Conclusions In the regression models, specific social determinants predicted effective coverage for major depression. Knowing the factors that determine who does and does not receive treatment contributes to improve our understanding of unmet needs and our ability to develop targeted interventions.

Background:University life typically occurs during a period of life transition, where the incidence of mental health and substance use problems and disorders peaks. However, relatively few students obtain effective treatment and support. e-Interventions have proven effective in improving the psychological outcomes of university students and have the potential to provide scalable services that can easily integrate into existing models of care. Minder is a mobile app codeveloped with university students that offers users a collection of evidence-based interventions tailored to help university students maintain their mental health and well-being and manage their substance use.Objective:This paper describes the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that aims to assess the effectiveness of the Minder app in improving the mental health and substance use outcomes of university students.Methods:This study is a 2-arm, parallel assignment, single-blinded, 30-day RCT with 1 intervention group and 1 waitlist control group. Overall, 1496 (748 per trial arm) university students from the University of British Columbia Vancouver Campus (N=54,000) who are aged ≥17 years, have a smartphone with Wi-Fi or cellular data, and speak English will be recruited via a variety of web-based and offline strategies. Participants will be randomized into the intervention or control group after completing a baseline survey. Those randomized into the intervention group will gain immediate access to the Minder app and will be assessed at 2 weeks and 30 days. Those randomized into the control group will be given access to the app content after their follow-up assessment at 30 days. The primary outcomes are measured from baseline to follow-up at 30 days and include changes in general anxiety symptomology, depressive symptomology, and alcohol consumption risk measured by the General Anxiety Disorder 7-Item scale, Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item scale, and US Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption Scale, respectively. Secondary outcomes include measures related to changes in the frequency of substance use, mental well-being, self-efficacy in managing mental health and substance use, readiness to change, and self-reported use of mental health services and supports (including referral) from baseline to follow-up at 30 days.Results:Trial recruitment and data collection began in September 2022, and the completion of data collection for the trial is anticipated by June 2023. As of May 10, 2023, a total of 1425 participants have been enrolled.Conclusions:The RCT described in this protocol paper will assess whether the Minder app is effective in improving the mental health and substance use outcomes of a general population of Canadian university students. Additional secondary outcome research aims to explore additional outcomes of interest for further research and better understand how to support students’ general mental well-being.Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05606601; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05606601International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/49364

The World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health-International College Student (WMH-ICS) initiative aims to screen for mental health and substance use problems among post-secondary students on a global scale as well as to develop and evaluate evidence-based preventive and ameliorative interventions for this population. This protocol paper presents the Canadian version of the WMH-ICS survey, detailing the adapted survey instrument, the unique weekly cross-sectional administration, the multi-tiered recruitment strategy, and the associated risk mitigation protocols. This paper aims to provide a methodological resource for researchers conducting cross-national comparisons of WMH-ICS data, as well as to serve as a useful guide for those interested in replicating the outlined cross-sectional methodology to better understand how mental health and substance use vary over time among university students. The online survey is based on the WMH-ICS survey instrument, modified to the Canadian context by the addition of questions pertaining to Canadian-based guidelines and the translation of the survey to Canadian French. The survey is administered through the Qualtrics survey platform and is sent to an independent stratified random sample of 350 students per site weekly, followed by two reminder emails. Upon survey closure every week, a random subsample of 70 non-responders are followed up with via phone or through a personal email in an effort to decrease non-responder bias. The survey is accompanied by an extensive risk mitigation protocol that stratifies respondents by level of need and provides tailored service recommendations, including a facilitated expedited appointment to student counselling services for those at increased risk of suicide. Anticipated sample size is approximately 5,500 students per site per year. In February 2020, the Canadian survey was deployed at the University of British Columbia. This was followed by deployment at Simon Fraser University (November 2020), McMaster University (January 2021), and University of Toronto (January 2022). Data collection at all four sites is ongoing. As of May 6th 2022, 29,503 responses have been collected. Based on an international collaboration, the Canadian version of the WMH-ICS survey incorporates a novel methodological approach centered on the weekly administration of a comprehensive cross-sectional survey to independent stratified random samples of university students. After 27 months of consecutive survey administration, we have developed and refined a survey protocol that has proven effective in engaging students at four Canadian institutions, allowing us to track how mental health and substance use vary over time using an internationally developed university student survey based on DSM-5 criteria.

Background Mental healthcare is delivered across service sectors that differ in level of specialization and intervention modalities typically offered. Little is known about the perceived helpfulness of the combinations of service sectors that patients use. Methods Respondents 18 + years with 12-month DSM-IV mental or substance use disorders who saw a provider for mental health problems in the year before interview were identified from WHO World Mental Health surveys in 17 countries. Based upon the types of providers seen, patients were grouped into nine mutually exclusive single-sector or multi-sector ‘treatment profiles’. Perceived helpfulness was defined as the patient’s maximum rating of being helped (‘a lot’, ‘some’, ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’) of any type of provider seen in the profile. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the joint associations of sociodemographics, disorder types, and treatment profiles with being helped ‘a lot’. Results Across all surveys combined, 29.4% (S.E. 0.6) of respondents with a 12-month disorder saw a provider in the past year (N = 3221). Of these patients, 58.2% (S.E. 1.0) reported being helped ‘a lot’. Odds of being helped ‘a lot’ were significantly higher (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.50–1.89) among the 12.9% of patients who used specialized multi-sector profiles involving both psychiatrists and other mental health specialists, compared to other patients, despite their high comorbidities. Lower odds of being helped ‘a lot’ were found among patients who were seen only in the general medical, psychiatrist, or other mental health specialty sectors (ORs = 0.46–0.71). Female gender and older age were associated with increased odds of being helped ‘a lot’. In models stratified by country income group, having 3 or more disorders (high-income countries only) and state-funded health insurance (low/middle-income countries only) were associated with increased odds of being helped ‘a lot’. Conclusions Patients who received specialized, multi-sector care were more likely than other patients to report being helped ‘a lot’. This result is consistent with previous research suggesting that persistence in help-seeking is associated with receiving helpful treatment. Given the nonrandom sorting of patients by types of providers seen and persistence in help-seeking, we cannot discount that selection bias may play some role in this pattern.