↓ Skip to main content

Promotion of mental health in young adults via mobile phone app: study protocol of the ECoWeB (emotional competence for well-being in Young adults) cohort multiple randomised trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, September 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
322 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
Promotion of mental health in young adults via mobile phone app: study protocol of the ECoWeB (emotional competence for well-being in Young adults) cohort multiple randomised trials
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, September 2020
DOI 10.1186/s12888-020-02857-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Newbold, F. C. Warren, R. S. Taylor, C. Hulme, S. Burnett, B. Aas, C. Botella, F. Burkhardt, T. Ehring, J. R. J. Fontaine, M. Frost, A. Garcia-Palacios, E. Greimel, C. Hoessle, A. Hovasapian, VEI Huyghe, J. Lochner, G. Molinari, R. Pekrun, B. Platt, T. Rosenkranz, K. R. Scherer, K. Schlegel, G. Schulte-Korne, C. Suso, V. Voigt, E. R. Watkins

Abstract

Promoting well-being and preventing poor mental health in young people is a major global priority. Building emotional competence (EC) skills via a mobile app may be an effective, scalable and acceptable way to do this. However, few large-scale controlled trials have examined the efficacy of mobile apps in promoting mental health in young people; none have tailored the app to individual profiles. The Emotional Competence for Well-Being in Young Adults cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) involves a longitudinal prospective cohort to examine well-being, mental health and EC in 16-22 year olds across 12 months. Within the cohort, eligible participants are entered to either the PREVENT trial (if selected EC scores at baseline within worst-performing quartile) or to the PROMOTE trial (if selected EC scores not within worst-performing quartile). In both trials, participants are randomised (i) to continue with usual practice, repeated assessments and a self-monitoring app; (ii) to additionally receive generic cognitive-behavioural therapy self-help in app; (iii) to additionally receive personalised EC self-help in app. In total, 2142 participants aged 16 to 22 years, with no current or past history of major depression, bipolar disorder or psychosis will be recruited across UK, Germany, Spain, and Belgium. Assessments take place at baseline (pre-randomisation), 1, 3 and 12 months post-randomisation. Primary endpoint and outcome for PREVENT is level of depression symptoms on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 at 3 months; primary endpoint and outcome for PROMOTE is emotional well-being assessed on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale at 3 months. Depressive symptoms, anxiety, well-being, health-related quality of life, functioning and cost-effectiveness are secondary outcomes. Compliance, adverse events and potentially mediating variables will be carefully monitored. The trial aims to provide a better understanding of the causal role of learning EC skills using interventions delivered via mobile phone apps with respect to promoting well-being and preventing poor mental health in young people. This knowledge will be used to develop and disseminate innovative evidence-based, feasible, and effective Mobile-health public health strategies for preventing poor mental health and promoting well-being. ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.clinicaltrials.org ). Number of identification: NCT04148508 November 2019.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 322 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 322 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 9%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Researcher 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 48 15%
Unknown 141 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 7%
Social Sciences 16 5%
Unspecified 10 3%
Other 31 10%
Unknown 158 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,022,390
of 24,871,735 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,511
of 5,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,036
of 415,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#28
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,871,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 415,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.