The present study examined the comparative effectiveness of self-directed (video, infographic) vs. non-self directed (workshop) modalities of online stress management resources and an inactive control condition in terms of their effectiveness and acceptability for university students.

University students have been reporting high levels of stress, which have been found to negatively impact their academic performance and overall well-being. Given these elevated levels of stress, a large number of students report using unhealthy coping behaviours such as alcohol and drug use or risky sexual behaviours to cope with daily stressors. High levels of stress can be harmful to students' quality of life and well-being (both physical and mental), as well as elevated stress over an extended period can hinder academic performance. To address the overwhelming demands for wellness services, online approaches to delivering stress management and well-being supports are being used on campuses as supplemental means of promoting student stress management, coping capacity, and well-being.

Growing research on the barriers associated with help-seeking and changes due to the pandemic have spurred a shift from in-person supports to online self-directed modalities. Evidence from research measuring the acceptability of digital mental health interventions in university students suggests that students rate these interventions with moderate to high acceptability, but students report concerns around the use of certain digital modalities such as privacy, credibility, and lack of guidance on how to get started and use the interventions. Research has demonstrated how these types of online support can be effective at enhancing university student well-being and decreasing stress. For example, an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to synthesize the literature on digital mental health interventions in higher education found that most interventions were effective at decreasing depression symptoms, anxiety, and stress in this context. Specifically, skills-training and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions were found to be effective. However, it is important to highlight that the authors found that the effectiveness depended on the modality or delivery format of the intervention. Although there is evidence for their individual effectiveness when compared to inactive control groups, it is crucial to have a better theoretical understanding of their relative effectiveness to one another to make research-informed decisions in selecting instructional approaches to support students' coping capacity in higher education.

Therefore, the overarching objective of the current study is to investigate how stress management knowledge can be effectively put into action within the university context by comparing different modalities. The study seeks to investigate differences in response to self-directed vs. non self-directed approaches to sharing stress management knowledge with students against a control group, specifically in terms of acceptability and change over time on wellness outcomes while accounting for the role of strategy use frequency. Specifically, the first objective (1.1) was to compare and evaluate self-directed, non self-directed, and an inactive control group by assessing effectiveness as demonstrated in changes (pre/post/follow-up) on wellness outcomes (i.e., perceived stress, coping capacity, mindfulness, coping self-efficacy, and well-being), while (1.2) examining the role of strategy use frequency. The second objective (2) is to further examine specific differences between commonly used knowledge mobilization modalities for stress management strategies (workshop, video, infographic) and an inactive control group by assessing (2.1) acceptability (i.e., likelihood of use, satisfaction) and (2.2) effectiveness as demonstrated in changes (pre/post/follow-up) on the same wellness outcomes while (2.3) examining the role of strategy use frequency.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Current university student

Exclusion Criteria:

-

Restricted by our ethics board approval.