presents sample characteristics. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 48 years. Participants were from the sports of cricket (n = 14, 24%), soccer (n = 9, 15%), rowing (n = 5, 8%), sailing (n = 4, 7%), field hockey (n = 4, 7%), and multiple (14) other sports (n = 23, 39%). The majority of participants were Olympic athletes (n = 10, 17%) or international-level athletes (n = 28, 48%), while the remainder (n = 21, 36%) were competing at national state, professional, age group international, Paralympic, or age group national state levels.
| Table 1Characteristics of participants included in the study. |
presents the preintervention comparisons between conditions. There were no significant differences between the intervention conditions for any of these variables. In addition, at preintervention there were no significant differences between trial conditions in the proportion of participants who were of Olympic and international (including Paralympic and age group international) level (χ2
3 = 0.3,
P = .98).
| Table 2Preintervention comparisons between conditions. |
There was no significant difference between conditions in those missing at both pre- and postintervention from among those who agreed to participate in the trial (N = 120, χ2
3 = 1.8,
P = .63). Nor was there a significant difference between conditions in those missing at postintervention (n = 40, χ2
3 = 0.9,
P = .92) or at 3-month follow-up (n = 40, χ2
3 = 4.6,
P = .22) from among those present at preintervention.
We conducted logistic regression analyses to assess whether there were any significant predictors of agreeing to participate in the trial (n = 120) from those completing the stage 1 survey (N = 770); the completion of any survey (n = 59) from those agreeing to participate (N = 120); and the completion of the postintervention survey (N = 50) from those who completed the preintervention survey (N = 40). Agreeing to participate in the trial was significantly related to gender, with men less likely than women to agree (odds ratio [OR] 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08–0.22, P < .001); age, with older participants more likely than younger participants to agree (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03–1.13, P = .001); prior counseling experience, with those who had not received previous counseling more likely to agree (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.09–2.76, P = .02); and general psychological distress, with those with higher K10 scores more likely to agree (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01–1.09, P = .02). Agreement to participate in the trial was not related to highest level of education. Missingness for both surveys (not submitting either the pre- or postintervention survey after agreeing to participate) was significantly related to gender only, with men more likely than women to be missing (OR 12.90, 95% CI 4.79–34.74, P < .001). Missingness for both surveys was not related to condition, age, highest level of education, prior counseling experience, or general psychological distress. Missingness at postintervention (not submitting a postintervention survey) or at 3-month follow-up (not submitting a 3-month follow-up survey) from those present at preintervention was not related to condition, age, gender, posttertiary education, prior counseling experience, or general psychological distress.
Intervention Adherence
We used unique identifiers (tokens) to track each participant’s use of the intervention materials. Of the 43 study participants from the intervention conditions, 41 (95%) visited at least 1 week’s online program, 35 (81%) visited both weeks’ online programs, and 2 (5%) visited neither. The intervention condition had no effect on the number of online programs visited (F
2,39 = 0.13,
P = .88).
Primary Intervention Effects
presents the observed means, standard deviations, and proportions for the primary outcome variables.
| Table 3Observed means, standard deviations, and proportions for the primary outcome measures at each measurement occasion for the trial conditions. |
Help-Seeking Attitudes The overall interaction between condition and measurement occasion for help-seeking attitudes was not significant (F
6,68.92 = 1.64,
P = .15). None of the conditions, including the control, had significant changes from pre- to postintervention or from preintervention to 3-month follow-up. However, there was an improvement from pre- to postintervention in attitudes in the mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (P = .04) that was significant compared with the feedback condition only, for which the estimated marginal means for attitudes decreased at postintervention. Hedges’ g between-group effect sizes at postintervention for the intervention conditions compared with the control condition were 0.28 (95% CI –0.54 to 1.09) for the mental health literacy/destigmatization condition, –0.12 (95% CI –0.91 to 0.67) for the feedback condition, and –0.05 (95% CI –0.82 to 0.72) for the help-seeking list condition. At 3-month follow-up, effect sizes compared with the control for help-seeking attitudes were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (g = –0.13, 95% CI –0.99 to 0.73), feedback condition (g = 0.29, 95% CI –0.58 to 1.15), and help-seeking list condition (g = 0.26, 95% CI –0.57 to 1.09).
Help-Seeking Intentions The overall interaction between condition and measurement occasion was not significant for either formal (F
3,35.45 = 0.55,
P = .65) or informal help-seeking intentions (F
3,26.29 = 2.21,
P = .11). Between-group effect sizes at postintervention for formal and informal intentions between the control condition and the interventions conditions were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (formal, g = 0.19, 95% CI –0.62 to 1.01; informal, g = –0.05, 95% CI –0.86 to 0.76), feedback condition (formal, g = 0.08, 95% CI –0.69 to 0.85; informal, g = –0.67, 95% CI –1.47 to 0.12), and help-seeking list condition (formal, g = 0.17, 95% CI –0.60 to 0.94; informal, g = –0.10, 95% CI –0.87 to 0.67). At 3-month follow-up, effect sizes compared with the control for help-seeking intentions were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (formal, g = 0.05, 95% CI –0.81 to 0.91; informal, g = –0.35, 95% CI –1.22 to 0.51), feedback condition (formal, g = 0.16, 95% CI –0.70 to 1.02; informal, g = –0.69, 95% CI –1.58 to 0.19), and help-seeking list condition (formal, g = 0.14, 95% CI –0.69 to 0.97; informal, g = 0.21, 95% CI –0.62 to 1.04).
Help-Seeking Behavior The interaction between condition and measurement occasion for help-seeking from formal sources was not significant for any condition compared with the control at postintervention (mental health literacy/destigmatization, OR 57.38, 95% CI 0.85–3868.09, P = .06; feedback, OR 5.15, 95% CI 0.04–637.04, P = .51; help-seeking list, OR 13.89, 95% CI 0.15–1263.93, P = .25) or at 3-month follow-up (mental health literacy/destigmatization, OR 3.48, 95% CI 0.10–122.32, P = .49; feedback, OR 9.45, 95% CI 0.18–507.02, P = .27; help-seeking list, OR 15.28, 95% CI 0.30–766.56, P = .17). Similarly, the overall interaction between condition and measurement occasion for help-seeking from informal sources was not significant for any condition compared with the control at postintervention (mental health literacy/destigmatization, OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.03–19.12, P = .86; feedback, OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00–1.95, P = .1; help-seeking list, OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.03–35.22, P = .97) or at 3-month follow-up (mental health literacy/destigmatization, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01–7.79, P = .4; feedback, OR 0.01 95% CI 0.00–1.21, P = .06; help-seeking list, OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.01–28.28, P = .81).
Secondary Intervention Effects
presents the observed means and standard deviations for the secondary outcome variables, and the significance levels of the planned contrasts comparing change over time between each intervention condition and all other conditions.
| Table 4Observed means and standard deviations for the secondary outcome measures at pre- and postintervention for the trial conditions.a
|
Depression Literacy The overall interaction between condition and measurement occasion for depression literacy was significant (F
6,69.41 = 2.47,
P = .03). Planned contrasts demonstrated in the mental health literacy/destigmatization condition a greater increase in depression literacy from pre- to postintervention than in the control and help-seeking list conditions (see ), and approached significance for the feedback condition (P = .05). These effects were maintained at 3-month follow-up. There were no other significant effects. Between-group effect sizes at postintervention compared with control were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (g = 0.90, 95% CI 0.05–1.75), feedback condition (g = 0.13, 95% CI –0.66 to 0.92), and help-seeking list condition (g = –0.34, 95% CI –1.11 to 0.44). At 3-month follow-up, effect sizes compared with control for depression literacy were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (g = 0.66, 95% CI –0.26 to 1.58), feedback condition (g = 0.30, 95% CI –0.60 to 1.20), and help-seeking list condition (g = –0.07, 95% CI –0.90 to 0.75). Given missing data at postintervention and 3-month follow-up and the lower precision of effect size confidence intervals than of planned contrasts, the effect size confidence intervals include zero even where the contrasts were significant. Patterns were similar for the literacy and stigma outcomes below.
Anxiety Literacy The overall interaction between condition and measurement occasion for anxiety literacy was significant (F
6,67.51 = 3.99,
P = .002). Planned contrasts demonstrated in the mental health literacy/destigmatization condition a greater increase in anxiety literacy than in all other conditions at postintervention, and these effects were maintained at 3-month follow-up (see ). There were no other significant effects. Between-group effect sizes at postintervention relative to control were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (g = 0.90, 95% CI 0.05–1.75), feedback condition (g = –0.33, 95% CI –1.12 to 0.47), and help-seeking list condition (g = –0.10, 95% CI –0.87 to 0.67). At 3-month follow-up, effect sizes compared with control for anxiety literacy were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (g = 0.76, 95% CI –0.17 to 1.68), feedback condition (g = –0.35, 95% CI –1.25 to 0.56), and help-seeking list condition (g = –0.03, 95% CI –0.74 to 0.69).
Depression Stigma The overall interaction between condition and measurement occasion for depression personal stigma was statistically significant (F
6,62.22 = 3.20,
P = .008). Planned contrasts demonstrated in the mental health literacy/destigmatization condition a greater decrease in depression stigma than in all other conditions from pre- to postintervention (see ). At 3-month follow-up the effects for the mental health literacy/destigmatization condition were no longer superior for depression stigma compared with any condition, except for the help-seeking list condition, which was associated with greater stigma. There were no other significant effects. Between-group effect sizes at postintervention relative to control were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (g = 0.25, 95% CI –0.57 to 1.06), feedback condition (g = –0.15, 95% CI –0.94 to 0.65), and help-seeking list condition (g = 0.26, 95% CI –0.51 to 1.04). At 3-month follow-up, effect sizes compared with control for depression stigma were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (g = 0.10, 95% CI –0.80 to 0.99), feedback condition (g = –0.09, 95% CI –0.99 to 0.81), and help-seeking list condition (g = –0.32, 95% CI –1.15 to 0.51).
Anxiety Stigma The overall interaction between condition and measurement occasion for anxiety stigma was significant (F
6,65.37 = 2.27,
P = .047). Planned contrasts demonstrated in the mental health literacy/destigmatization condition a greater decrease in anxiety stigma from pre- to postintervention than in the feedback condition only (see ). However, at 3-month follow-up the reduction in anxiety stigma for the mental health literacy/destigmatization condition was significant compared with all conditions. There were no other significant effects. Between-group effect sizes at postintervention relative to control were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (g = 0.04, 95% CI –0.77 to 0.85), feedback condition (g = –0.54, 95% CI –1.35 to 0.26), and help-seeking list condition (g = –0.10, 95% CI –0.87 to 0.67). At 3-month follow-up, effect sizes compared with the control for anxiety stigma were as follows: mental health literacy/destigmatization condition (g = 0.50, 95% CI –0.41 to 1.41), feedback condition (g = 0.12, 95% CI –1.02 to 0.78), and help-seeking list condition (g = 0.04, 95% CI –0.78 to 0.87).