Search

Objective: Previous research has evaluated the sources of post-secondary student stress, but has failed to explore whether stressors fluctuate over time. The purpose of this research was to use the Post-Secondary Student Stressors Index to examine whether stressors changed significantly and meaningfully over the course of an academic year. Due to the timing of data collection, results also provide context around students' experiences of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: Cross-sectional data was collected at 3 time points via online surveys over the course of the 2020–2021 academic year from >10,000 students. Participants attended 15 post-secondary institutions across Canada, representing 9 provinces and 1 territory. Validated instruments were used to assess levels of stress, distress and the severity of student-specific stressors. Kruskal–Wallis ranked tests and multiple pairwise comparison analyses were conducted to assess whether the mean severity of stressors changed over time. Standard effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d. Results: Mean levels of stress and psychological distress were high at the start of the study and remained high across time points. A similarly high level of stress was observed on average for student-specific stressors. While significant differences in mean severity were observed over time for some stressors, standardized effect sizes were negligible, suggesting little meaningful change and consistent levels of chronic stress over the course of the academic year. Conclusions: This is the first paper to examine trends in student-specific stress using a nationwide sample of Canadian post-secondary students during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patterns observed in student-specific stressors reflected changes likely to be indicative of the pandemic, including the most severe stress associated with academics, finances and concerns for the future. Implications for future research are discussed, in particular, the importance of examining stressors related to COVID-19 and their impact on student mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: This study sought to evaluate whether a contact-based workplace education program was more effective than standard mental health literacy training in promoting early intervention and support for healthcare employees with mental health issues.Method: A parallel-group, randomised trial was conducted with employees in 2 multi-site Ontario hospitals with the evaluators blinded to the groups. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 group-based education programs: Beyond Silence (comprising 6 in-person, 2-h sessions plus 5 online sessions co-led by employees who personally experienced mental health issues) or Mental Health First Aid (a standardised 2-day training program led by a trained facilitator). Participants completed baseline, post-group, and 3-mo follow-up surveys to explore perceived changes in mental health knowledge, stigmatized beliefs, and help-seeking/help-outreach behaviours. An intent-to-treat analysis was completed with 192 participants. Differences were assessed using multi-level mixed models accounting for site, group, and repeated measurement.Results: Neither program led to significant increases in help-seeking or help-outreach behaviours. Both programs increased mental health literacy, improved attitudes towards seeking treatment, and decreased stigmatized beliefs, with sustained changes in stigmatized beliefs more prominent in the Beyond Silence group.Conclusion: Beyond Silence, a new contact-based education program customised for healthcare workers was not superior to standard mental health literacy training in improving mental health help-seeking or help-outreach behaviours in the workplace. The only difference was a reduction in stigmatized beliefs over time. Additional research is needed to explore the factors that lead to behaviour change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Despite growing awareness of the importance of workplace mental health training and an increasing number of educational resources, there is a gap in knowledge regarding what shapes training effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to compare and describe the active ingredients of 2 workplace mental health education programs for health care workers.Methods: Within the context of a randomized clinical trial, a multimethod process evaluation was conducted to explore key process elements shaping implementation outcomes: the innovation, service recipients, service providers, and the organizational context. Data collection included descriptive statistics regarding program participation, postprogram interviews with a purposive sample of 18 service recipients, 182 responses to open-ended questions on postgroup and follow-up surveys, and field journal reflections on the process of implementation. Data analysis was informed by an interpretive description approach, using a process evaluation framework to categorize responses from all data sources, followed by within and cross-case comparison of data from both programs.Results: Five key forces shaped the implementation and perceived outcomes of both programs: a contact-based education approach, information tailored to the workplace context, varied stakeholder perspectives, sufficient time to integrate and apply learning, and organizational support. The Beyond Silence program provided more opportunity for contact-based education, health care-specific content, and in-depth discussion of diverse perspectives.Conclusions: To increase mental health literacy and reduce stigma, workplace training should be based on best practice principles of contact-based education, with contextually relevant examples and support from all levels of the organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Stigma has been identified as a complex and problematic issue. It acts as a major barrier to accessing care and can exacerbate the experience of a health condition, particularly for clients with mental illness and substance use issues. Scales designed to assess stigmatising attitudes towards those with mental illness and substance use problems among health care providers are necessary to evaluate programs designed to reduce that stigma. The goal of this study was to evaluate the internal reliability and external validity of the Opening Minds Survey for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC).Methods: The current study examined the use of the OMS-HC in assessing stigma held by Community Health Centre (CHC) staff towards clients with mental and/or substance use problems. Participants represented staff from 6 CHCs in the Greater Toronto Area ( n = 190).Results: The OMS-HC was found to have acceptable internal reliability for the 15-item version of the scale (α = 0.766) and mixed reliability for its subscales (α = 0.792-0.673). Confirmatory factor analysis showed good absolute (root mean square error of approximation = 0.013) and relative fit (Tucker-Lewis index = 0.996) for the current data. The OMS-HC was also shown to correlate with a series of scales commonly used in stigma research.Conclusions: After testing for internal validity and comparing the OMS-HC to other commonly used scales for assessing stigma and attitudes concerning recovery, the scale was found to be appropriate for the CHC setting and may be advantageous over the use of multiple scales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)