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

Autor:	Kählke F; TUM School of Medicine and Health, Professorship Psychology & Digital Mental Health Care, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany., Hasking P; Curtin enAble Institute, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia., Küchler AM; Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany., Baumeister H; Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Frontiers in digital health [Front Digit Health] 2024 Feb 14; Vol. 6, pp. 1284661. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Feb 14 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.3389/fdgth.2024.1284661
Abstrakt:	Introduction: 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. Aim: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. Competing Interests: HB reports having received consultancy fees and fees for lectures/workshops from chambers of psychotherapists and training institutes for psychotherapists in the e-mental-health context. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision. (© 2024 Kählke, Hasking, Küchler and Baumeister.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu