RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Based on evidence that mental health is more than an absence of mental disorders, there have been calls to find ways to promote flourishing at a population level, especially in young people, which requires effective and scalable interventions. Despite their potential for scalability, few mental wellbeing apps have been rigorously tested in high-powered trials, derived from models of healthy emotional functioning, or tailored to individual profiles. We aimed to test a personalised emotional competence self-help app versus a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-help app versus a self-monitoring app to promote mental wellbeing in healthy young people. METHODS: This international, multicentre, parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trial within a cohort multiple randomised trial (including a parallel trial of depression prevention) was done at four university trial sites in four countries (the UK, Germany, Spain, and Belgium). Participants were recruited from schools and universities and via social media from the four respective countries. Eligible participants were aged 16-22 years with well adjusted emotional competence profiles and no current or past diagnosis of major depression. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to usual practice plus either the emotional competence app, the CBT app or the self-monitoring app, by an independent computerised system, minimised by country, age, and self-reported gender, and followed up for 12 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome was mental wellbeing (indexed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well Being Scale [WEMWBS]) at 3-month follow-up, analysed in participants who completed the 3-month follow-up assessment. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04148508, and is closed. FINDINGS: Between Oct 15, 2020, and Aug 3, 2021, 2532 participants were enrolled, and 847 were randomly assigned to the emotional competence app, 841 to the CBT app, and 844 to the self-monitoring app. Mean age was 19·2 years (SD 1·8). Of 2532 participants self-reporting gender, 1896 (74·9%) were female, 613 (24·2%) were male, 16 (0·6%) were neither, and seven (0·3%) were both. 425 participants in the emotional competence app group, 443 in the CT app group, and 447 in the self-monitoring app group completed the follow-up assessment at 3 months. There was no difference in mental wellbeing between the groups at 3 months (global p=0·47). The emotional competence app did not differ from the CBT app (mean difference in WEMWBS -0·21 [95% CI -1·08 to 0·66]) or the self-monitoring app (0·32 [-0·54 to 1·19]) and the CBT app did not differ from the self-monitoring app (0·53 [-0·33 to 1·39]). 14 of 1315 participants were admitted to or treated in hospital (or both) for mental health-related reasons, which were considered unrelated to the interventions (five participants in the emotional competence app group, eight in the CBT app group, and one in the self-monitoring app group). No deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: The emotional competence app and the CBT app provided limited benefit in promoting mental wellbeing in healthy young people. This finding might reflect the low intensity of these interventions and the difficulty improving mental wellbeing via universal digital interventions implemented in low-risk populations. FUNDING: European Commission.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Effective, scalable interventions are needed to prevent poor mental health in young people. Although mental health apps can provide scalable prevention, few have been rigorously tested in high-powered trials built on models of healthy emotional functioning or tailored to individual profiles. We aimed to test a personalised emotional competence app versus a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-help app versus a self-monitoring app to prevent an increase in depression symptoms in young people. METHODS: This multicentre, parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trial, within a cohort multiple randomised trial (including a parallel trial of wellbeing promotion) was done at four university trial sites in the UK, Germany, Spain, and Belgium. Participants were recruited from schools, universities, and social media from the four respective countries. Eligible participants were aged 16-22 years with increased vulnerability indexed by baseline emotional competence profile, without current or past diagnosis of major depression. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to usual practice plus either the personalised emotional competence self-help app, the generic CBT self-help app, or the self-monitoring app by an independent computerised system, minimised by country, age, and self-reported gender, and followed up for 12 months post-randomisation. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was depression symptoms (according to Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) at 3-month follow-up, analysed in participants who completed the 3-month follow-up assessment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04148508, and is closed. FINDINGS: Between Oct 15, 2020, and Aug 3, 2021, 1262 participants were enrolled, including 417 to the emotional competence app, 423 to the CBT app, and 422 to the self-monitoring app. Mean age was 18·8 years (SD 2·0). Of 1262 participants self-reporting gender, 984 (78·0%) were female, 253 (20·0%) were male, 15 (1·2%) were neither, and ten (0·8%) were both. 178 participants in the emotional competence app group, 191 in the CBT app group, and 199 in the self-monitoring app group completed the follow-up assessment at 3 months. At 3 months, depression symptoms were lower with the CBT app than the self-monitoring app (mean difference in PHQ-9 -1·18 [95% CI -2·01 to -0·34]; p=0·006), but depression symptoms did not differ between the emotional competence app and the CBT app (0·63 [-0·22 to 1·49]; p=0·15) or the self-monitoring app and emotional competence app (-0·54 [-1·39 to 0·31]; p=0·21). 31 of the 541 participants who completed any of the follow-up assessments received treatment in hospital or were admitted to hospital for mental health-related reasons considered unrelated to interventions (eight in the emotional competence app group, 15 in the CBT app group, and eight in the self-monitoring app group). No deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: The CBT app delayed increases in depression symptoms in at-risk young people relative to the self-monitoring app, although this benefit faded by 12 months. Against hypotheses, the emotional competence app was not more effective at reducing depression symptoms than the self-monitoring app. CBT self-help apps might be valuable public mental health interventions for young people given their scalability, non-consumable nature, and affordability. FUNDING: European Commission.
RESUMEN
The internal structure of ability emotional intelligence (EI) tests at item level has been hardly studied, and if studied often the predicted structure did not show. In the present study, an a priori model for responses to EI ability items using Likert response scales with a Situational Judgement Test (SJT) format is investigated with confirmatory factor analysis. The model consists of (1) a target EI ability factor, (2) an acquiescence factor, which is a method factor induced by the Likert response scales, and (3) design-based error covariances, which are induced by the SJT format. It is investigated whether this a priori model can account for the observed associations between the raw item responses of the Components of Emotion Understanding Test-24 (CEUT-24). The CEUT-24 is a new test developed to assess emotion understanding, a key aspect of the EI ability construct, based on the componential emotion framework. The sample consisted of 1184 participants (15-22 years old) from four European countries (United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, and Spain) speaking four different languages (English, Dutch, German and Spanish). Findings showed that the a priori model fitted the data well in all four languages. Furthermore, measurement invariance testing gave evidence for a well-fitting configural, metric, and partial scalar invariance model. The conclusion is that within a regular CFA framework using raw observed items responses, method factors (acquiescence response style and scenario induced variance) can be disentangled from the targeted EI ability factor.