↓ Skip to main content

An experimental study exploring the impact of vignette gender on the quality of university students’ mental health first aid for peers with symptoms of depression

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An experimental study exploring the impact of vignette gender on the quality of university students’ mental health first aid for peers with symptoms of depression
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2887-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Bethan Davies, John Wardlaw, Richard Morriss, Cris Glazebrook

Abstract

University students have high rates of depression, and friends are often the most commonly-used source of support for emotional distress in this population. This study aimed to explore students' ability to provide effective support for their peers with depressive symptoms and the factors influencing the quality of their mental health first aid (MHFA) skills, including students' gender, course of study, and gender of student experiencing depression. Via an online survey, students at two British universities (N = 483) were quasi-randomly allocated to view a video vignette of either a male or female student depicting symptoms of depression. An open-ended question probed MHFA actions they would take to help the vignette character, which were rated using a standardised scoring scheme based on MHFA guidelines. Students reported low MHFA scores (mean 2.89, out of possible 12). The most commonly reported action was provision of support and information, but only eight (1.6 %) students stated an intention to assess risk of harm. Those studying clinically non-relevant degrees with limited mental health content reported poorer MHFA (p = <0.001) and were less confident about their ability to support a friend with depression (p = 0.04). There was no main effect of vignette gender, but within the group of students on non-relevant courses the male vignette received significantly poorer MHFA than the female vignette (p = 0.02). A significant three-way interaction found that male participants studying non-relevant degrees who viewed a male vignette had poorer MHFA compared to females studying non-relevant degrees who viewed the female vignette (p = 0.005). Most students lack the necessary MHFA skills to support friends suffering from symptoms of depression, or to help them get appropriate support and prevent risk of harm. Students on courses which do not include mental health related content are particularly ill-equipped to support male students, with male students receiving the poorest quality MHFA from fellow male students on these courses. MHFA training has the potential to improve outcomes for students with depression, and could have a valuable role in reducing the excess risk of harm seen in male students.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 205 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 9%
Researcher 16 8%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 58 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 62 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 64 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,765,625
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,778
of 15,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,991
of 299,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#135
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.