StressNCT07086001
Examining the Acceptability and Effectiveness of a Self-Directed, Web-Based Resource for Stress and Coping in University
A study testing stress management and coping in people with Stress and Coping, run by McGill University at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
University students consistently report high levels of stress and psychological distress and identify these as key factors that negatively impact their academic performance and engagement with their studies. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Stress, Coping, Coping Behavior
- What is being tested?
- stress management and coping
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 242 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 2 Oct 2022to 28 Dec 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- University student
Who cannot join
- -
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Does it Work? Examining the Acceptability and Effectiveness of a Self-Directed, Web-Based Resource for Stress and Coping in University: Randomized Controlled Trial
University students consistently report high levels of stress and psychological distress and identify these as key factors that negatively impact their academic performance and engagement with their studies. Supporting students in effectively coping with stress and distress is of critical importance to facilitate learning and development in university environments. To that end, technology-based approaches to delivering stress-management and well-being supports to university students have proliferated on campuses as supplemental means of supporting student stress management, coping capacity, and well-being. Indeed, online resources for students' self-directed use such as websites, apps, or on-demand workshops, are increasingly popular given their benefits in improving access to support as well as the potential for reaching students who may be reluctant to seek other forms of mental health support or are on waiting lists for more specialized services. In addition, the provision of resources for addressing stress and enhancing coping capacity is aligned with the recently proposed health theory of coping which calls for enhancing the availability of evidence-based healthy coping strategies. However, investigation into the acceptability and even more critically the effectiveness of online, self-directed resources for non-clinical stress-management and healthy coping support is limited. Thus, this study sought to explore the acceptability and effectiveness of a self-directed, web-based resource for enhancing students' stress-management and coping capacity. Furthermore, the study also examined if there would be any added benefit of screening students to assess stress and coping needs and then directing them to specific resources to match their needs for stress-management and healthy coping support.
Read the detailed description
University students' mental health and well-being have been a growing concern within higher education research and practice for many decades. For those pursuing a university education, this time in their lives often corresponds with their developmental transition to adulthood. Coined in research literature as emerging adulthood, this developmental period is distinct from adulthood conceptually and as a subjective experience. Emerging adulthood is a challenging yet unique time of exploration and settling into adult roles, often characterized as a time of feeling in-between. The transitional nature of this developmental period has implications for university students' mental health and well-being, as it is also a time where high rates of engagement in risky and unhealthy coping behaviours have been observed. Taken together, there is a clear need to enhance access to evidence-based strategies and tools to support students in effectively managing stress and enhancing their capacity to cope with distress.
To date, efforts aimed at improving student mental health and well-being in university settings have included a wide variety of interventions targeting stress, depression, anxiety, resilience, and general mental health and well-being. Increasingly, technology-based and online tools (e.g., websites, apps, chat-bots, on-demand programming) are used with several systematic and meta-analytic reviews emphasizing the promise of the technology-based approach for improving key outcomes. Self-directed or self-administered online resources have the potential to serve as supplementary support for students and offer several advantages. First, they have the potential to reach those who may not access face-to-face services, who may not meet clinical criteria for specialized treatments or are on waitlists for services, thus broadening access to evidence-based strategies and supports. Second, the self-directed format is supportive of student autonomy and confidentiality as individuals can choose when, where, and how to access information and make use of resources most aligned with their individual needs. Lastly, the online presentation of information and evidence-based strategies and techniques allows for a cost-effective, low-intensity, and adaptable (i.e., possibility to update and/or change based on contextual needs) means to supplement existing mental health and well-being services on campus.
Despite the advantages described above and emerging evidence of effectiveness for using online, self-directed approaches to student support, research examining the effectiveness and acceptability of this approach is in its infancy. In addition, it is unclear to what extent online, self-directed programming and resources are integrated into the university setting and utilized beyond their initial effectiveness trials. Notably, even when interventions and programs for student mental health and well-being are shown to be effective, they are often only shared with students through the universities' health and wellness center, relying on students to proactively seek help to access these services. This poses a challenge because research consistently shows that university students exhibit low levels of help-seeking, leading to the underutilization of many services and resources despite a high demand. Thus, there is an urgent need to explore alternative approaches for resource delivery that facilitate students' universal and ongoing access to self-directed support options to comprehensively address stress and coping needs.
In summary, despite the rapid proliferation of online self-directed resources for university students, research examining the effectiveness of this approach for improving stress and coping is still in its infancy. Further research is needed to address gaps and deepen our understanding of what works best and how in the area of supporting university students' stress-management and coping capacity. Thus, using a randomized-controlled design, this study sought to examine the acceptability and effectiveness of a web-based, self-directed resource for university students containing evidence-based strategies for stress-management and healthy coping. In addition, this study examined whether there would be any added benefit of using a screening approach to direct students to personalized resources aligned with their identified needs. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups; directed to personalized resources aligned with needs, non-directed but received all resources, and waitlist comparison. Main outcomes assessed were participant ratings of acceptability, stress, coping (coping self-efficacy and coping behaviours), and well-being over time.
Specifically, the first objective (1) was to examine potential group differences (directed and non-directed resource groups only) in students' acceptability of the web-based resource over time. It was hypothesized that (H1) acceptability would be higher in the directed group when compared to the non-directed over time. The second objective (2) was to examine the effectiveness of the online self-directed resources in terms of group differences (directed, non-directed, comparison) on outcome measures (i.e., stress, coping, and well-being) and in terms of differences in scores over time between baseline, post, and follow-up measures. It is hypothesized (H2a) that the directed group will show stronger improvements across stress, coping, and well-being outcomes over time than both the non-directed group and the comparison group. It is also hypothesized (H2b) that the non-directed group will show significant improvements across study outcomes relative to the comparison group. Lastly, the third objective (3) was to examine the effectiveness of the overall web-based, self-directed resource in terms of group differences (resource group; merged directed and non-directed versus the comparison group) on outcome measures and in terms of change in scores over time between baseline, post, and follow-up measures (i.e., stress, coping, and well-being). It is hypothesized (H3) that the resource group will show significant improvements across study outcomes in relation to the comparison group.
Participants who expressed interest in participating in the study were asked to complete a brief online demographics survey to facilitate their random assignment into the three different conditions within the study; namely, directed to resources based on reported need in the screening questionnaire (Group 1: directed), non-directed sharing of all resources (Group 2: non-directed), and waitlist comparison (Group 3: comparison). Responses to the demographic questionnaire were used to ensure comparable samples across the different conditions in terms of participants' age, gender, and program of study. Following random assignment to the different conditions, all participants were asked to complete the baseline measures and the screening questionnaire (described in the measures section below). Although all participants were asked to complete the brief screening questionnaire, only those in the directed group subsequently received personalized instruction on how to use the resources and strategies provided in the online resource.
Group 1 (Directed) Immediately following the completion of the baseline survey, Group 1 was given access to the website presenting a collection of stress-management, motivation, healthy coping, well-being, and socializing resources. Additionally, based on their answers to the brief screener, Group 1 was directed to one of three unique pages on the website based on their responses on the screening questionnaire demonstrating low, moderate, or high need for support around stress and coping. The directing process was automated using a scoring algorithm within the survey platform used in this study (i.e., Qualtrics).
Group 2 (Non-directed) Participants in Group 2 followed the same procedure as Group 1; however, they did not receive any personalized instruction and were simply directed to the home page of the website containing resources.
Group 3 (Comparison) Participants in Group 3 constituted the waitlist comparison group. As such, they did not have access to any of the strategies hosted on the website during the data collection phase of the study. Participants in Group 3 were asked to complete online surveys identical to those completed by Groups 1 and 2. Although Group 3 did not have access to the strategies during the project, the full web-based resource was shared with the comparison group at the end of data collection.
In terms of data collection timeline, all groups completed measures regarding their stress, coping, and well-being at the start of the study (Baseline: T1), four weeks after the start of the study (Post: T2), and eight weeks following the start of the study (Follow-up: T3). In addition, participants in Groups 1 and 2 completed a brief check-in to assess resource acceptability two weeks after baseline, which is when the resources were initially shared with participants.
- Conditions
- Stress, Coping, Coping Behavior, Well-Being (Psychological Flourishing), Digital Intervention
- Being tested
- stress management and coping
- Keywords
- stress, coping, university students, digital intervention
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
stress management and copingBehavioural
Online intervention focusing on stress and coping in university students. All resources were grouped into five main categories: managing stress, enhancing performance, adulting, socialising, and well-being. The resource was hosted on a website and presented information in several multimedia formats (i.e., text, audio, video, interactive infographic) to account for diversity of preferences. All students in the intervention groups were provided with unlimited access to the intervention. Furthermore, all students were asked to complete screener questions on their stress and coping, but only students in the intervention group were directed to one of three unique pages on the website based on their responses on the screening questionnaire, demonstrating low, moderate, or high need for support around stress and coping.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Directed | Experimental | Website presenting a collection of stress-management, motivation, healthy coping, well-being, and socializing resources + brief screener directing students to tailored resources based on responses to the screener (demonstrating low, moderate, or high need for support around stress and coping). Receives: Behavioral: stress management and coping |
| Non-directed | Experimental | Website presenting a collection of stress-management, motivation, healthy coping, well-being, and socializing resources (no tailored resource or screener was received for this group). Receives: Behavioral: stress management and coping |
| Waitlist Comparison | No intervention | Did not have access to the strategies during the project, the full web-based resource was shared with the comparison group at the end of data collection. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Stress
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, 1988) is a widely used self-report measure of individuals' perception of stress. This measure contains 10 items in which participants indicate their experience of stress on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never to 4 = very often). Items were adapted to reflect experiences during the past week and include statements such as "In the past week, how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?" Ratings were averaged across items such that higher scores represented greater perceived stress. The PSS has good reliability (Cronbach's α = .89), construct validity, and predictive validity with reports of psychological and physical symptoms.
Measured: Week 1, 5 & 9
Secondary outcomes (4)
Acceptability of the Resource
A researcher-developed measure aligned with the Kirkpatrick New World Model for program evaluation. Specifically, a total of 11 items assessed participants' (1) overall satisfaction with the resource (8 items; e.g., "I found the website useful for me"; "The strategies presented in the website helped me better understand how to manage my stress and improve my wellness"; "I found that the website presented valuable strategies and techniques" rated on a 4-point Likert scale; 1= strongly disagree to 4= strongly agree), (2) frequency of actual and planned use of strategies (2 item; i.e., "Over the past two weeks, how often did you use the strategies presented on the website?" and "Over the coming weeks, how often do you plan to use the strategies presented on the website?" Rated on a 4-point Likert scale; 1 = every day to 4= never) as well as (3) a single item to rate perceived impact for their well-being (i.e., "Over the past two weeks, how would you rate the impact of the strategie
Measured: Week 1, 5 & 9
Change in Coping Self-efficacy
The Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES; Chesney et al., 2006) which is a measure of one's confidence in effectively engaging in coping behaviors in the face of challenges. This measure contains 26 items in which participants indicate confidence in their coping strategies when it comes to handling challenges and stressors on an 11-point Likert scale (0 = cannot do at all to 10 = certain can do). The CSES states, "When things aren't going well for you, or when you're having problems, how confident or certain are you that you can do the following:" and include statements such as "find solutions to your most difficult problems" and "see things from the other person's point of view during a heated argument." Higher scores on the CSES represent higher coping-self efficacy.
Measured: Week 1, 5 & 9
Change in Coping Behaviours
The Coping Index (CI) was used to assess students' engagement in healthy and unhealthy coping behaviours over the duration of the study. The CI is a 20-item measure of engagement with healthy (10 items) and unhealthy (10 items) coping behaviours which are aligned with the health theory of coping framework (Stallman, 2020). Participants are asked to indicate how often they engage in each behaviour listed when they feel stressed or distressed on a 4-point Likert scale (0= I don't do this at all to 3= I do this most of the time). Higher scores on the healthy coping subscale indicate greater frequency of engagement in healthy coping behaviours, and higher scores on the unhealthy coping subscale indicate greater frequency of engagement in unhealthy coping in response to stress or distress. This measure has been found to have satisfactory test-retest reliability in previous studies (α = .71) (Stallman, 2019).
Measured: Week 1, 5 & 9
Change in Well-being
The Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al., 2007), which is a measure of positive mental health and consists of 14 positively worded items. Participants are asked to rate statements such as "I've been feeling good about yourself" on a 5-point Likert scale according to their experience over the past 2 weeks (1= none of the time; 5= all of the time). The WEMWBS has demonstrated good internal consistency in student (α = .89) and general population samples (α = .91) and was found to be psychometrically robust in validation studies (Stewart-Brown et al., 2011; Tennant et al., 2007).
Measured: Week 1, 5 & 9
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Jul 2025
- Study start2 Oct 2022
- Primary completion28 Dec 2022
- Study completion28 Dec 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for StressStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 242 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- McGill University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Nancy Heath, McGill University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07086001
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 21-10-040
- Other IDs
- 253619
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 17 Jul 2025
- Last updated
- 8 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Ma L, Zhang Y, Cui Z. Mindfulness-based interventions for prevention of depressive symptoms in university students: A meta-analytic review. Mindfulness. 2019;10:2209-2224. doi:10.1007/s12671-019-01192-w
Ang WHD, Lau ST, Cheng LJ, Chew HSJ, Tan JH, Shorey S, et al. Effectiveness of resilience interventions for higher education students: A meta-analysis and metaregression. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2022;114(7):1670-1694. doi:10.1037/edu0000719
Conley CS, Durlak JA, Kirsch AC. A Meta-analysis of universal mental health prevention programs for higher education students. Prev Sci. 2015 May;16(4):487-507. doi: 10.1007/s11121-015-0543-1.
PubMed 25744536Böke BN, Mills DJ, Mettler J, Heath NL. Stress and coping patterns of university students. Journal of College Student Development. 2019;60(1):85-103. doi:10.1353/csd.2019.0005
Swanson JA. Trends in literature about emerging adulthood: Review of empirical studies. Emerging Adulthood. 2016;4(6):391-402. doi:10.1177/2167696816630468
Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol. 2000 May;55(5):469-80.
PubMed 10842426Conley CS, Kirsch AC, Dickson DA, Bryant FB. Negotiating the transition to college: Developmental trajectories and gender differences in psychological functioning, cognitive-affective strategies, and social well-being. Emerging Adulthood. 2014;2(3):195-210. doi:10.1177%2F2167696814521808
Hill M, Farrelly N, Clarke C, Cannon M. Student mental health and well-being: Overview and Future Directions. Ir J Psychol Med. 2024 Jun;41(2):259-266. doi: 10.1017/ipm.2020.110. Epub 2020 Nov 27.
PubMed 33243317Stallman HM. Health theory of coping. Australian Psychologist. 2020;55(4) :295-306. doi :10.1111/ap.12465
Harrer M, Adam SH, Fleischmann RJ, Baumeister H, Auerbach R, Bruffaerts R, Cuijpers P, Kessler RC, Berking M, Lehr D, Ebert DD. Effectiveness of an Internet- and App-Based Intervention for College Students With Elevated Stress: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 23;20(4):e136. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9293.
PubMed 29685870Stallman HM. Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian Psychologist. 2010;45(4):249-257. doi:10.1080/00050067.2010.482109
Lattie EG, Adkins EC, Winquist N, Stiles-Shields C, Wafford QE, Graham AK. Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression, Anxiety, and Enhancement of Psychological Well-Being Among College Students: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jul 22;21(7):e12869. doi: 10.2196/12869.
PubMed 31333198Sharp J, Theiler S. A review of psychological distress among university students: Pervasiveness, implications and potential points of intervention. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling. 2018;40:193-212. doi:10.1007/s10447-018-9321-7
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Does it Work? Examining the Acceptability and Effectiveness of a Self-Directed, Web-Based Resource for Stress and Coping in University: Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07086001
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 21-10-040
- Conditions
- Stress, Coping, Coping Behavior, Well-Being (Psychological Flourishing), Digital Intervention
- Keywords
- stress, coping, university students, digital intervention
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 242 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- McGill UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 2 Oct 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 28 Dec 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 28 Dec 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
University students consistently report high levels of stress and psychological distress and identify these as key factors that negatively impact their academic performance and engagement with their studies. Supporting students in effectively coping with stress and distress is of critical importance to facilitate learning and development in university environments. To that end, technology-based approaches to delivering stress-management and well-being supports to university students have proliferated on campuses as supplemental means of supporting student stress management, coping capacity, and well-being. Indeed, online resources for students' self-directed use such as websites, apps, or on-demand workshops, are increasingly popular given their benefits in improving access to support as well as the potential for reaching students who may be reluctant to seek other forms of mental health support or are on waiting lists for more specialized services. In addition, the provision of resources for addressing stress and enhancing coping capacity is aligned with the recently proposed health theory of coping which calls for enhancing the availability of evidence-based healthy coping strategies. However, investigation into the acceptability and even more critically the effectiveness of online, self-directed resources for non-clinical stress-management and healthy coping support is limited. Thus, this study sought to explore the acceptability and effectiveness of a self-directed, web-based resource for enhancing students' stress-management and coping capacity. Furthermore, the study also examined if there would be any added benefit of screening students to assess stress and coping needs and then directing them to specific resources to match their needs for stress-management and healthy coping support.
Detailed description
University students' mental health and well-being have been a growing concern within higher education research and practice for many decades. For those pursuing a university education, this time in their lives often corresponds with their developmental transition to adulthood. Coined in research literature as emerging adulthood, this developmental period is distinct from adulthood conceptually and as a subjective experience. Emerging adulthood is a challenging yet unique time of exploration and settling into adult roles, often characterized as a time of feeling in-between. The transitional nature of this developmental period has implications for university students' mental health and well-being, as it is also a time where high rates of engagement in risky and unhealthy coping behaviours have been observed. Taken together, there is a clear need to enhance access to evidence-based strategies and tools to support students in effectively managing stress and enhancing their capacity to cope with distress.
To date, efforts aimed at improving student mental health and well-being in university settings have included a wide variety of interventions targeting stress, depression, anxiety, resilience, and general mental health and well-being. Increasingly, technology-based and online tools (e.g., websites, apps, chat-bots, on-demand programming) are used with several systematic and meta-analytic reviews emphasizing the promise of the technology-based approach for improving key outcomes. Self-directed or self-administered online resources have the potential to serve as supplementary support for students and offer several advantages. First, they have the potential to reach those who may not access face-to-face services, who may not meet clinical criteria for specialized treatments or are on waitlists for services, thus broadening access to evidence-based strategies and supports. Second, the self-directed format is supportive of student autonomy and confidentiality as individuals can choose when, where, and how to access information and make use of resources most aligned with their individual needs. Lastly, the online presentation of information and evidence-based strategies and techniques allows for a cost-effective, low-intensity, and adaptable (i.e., possibility to update and/or change based on contextual needs) means to supplement existing mental health and well-being services on campus.
Despite the advantages described above and emerging evidence of effectiveness for using online, self-directed approaches to student support, research examining the effectiveness and acceptability of this approach is in its infancy. In addition, it is unclear to what extent online, self-directed programming and resources are integrated into the university setting and utilized beyond their initial effectiveness trials. Notably, even when interventions and programs for student mental health and well-being are shown to be effective, they are often only shared with students through the universities' health and wellness center, relying on students to proactively seek help to access these services. This poses a challenge because research consistently shows that university students exhibit low levels of help-seeking, leading to the underutilization of many services and resources despite a high demand. Thus, there is an urgent need to explore alternative approaches for resource delivery that facilitate students' universal and ongoing access to self-directed support options to comprehensively address stress and coping needs.
In summary, despite the rapid proliferation of online self-directed resources for university students, research examining the effectiveness of this approach for improving stress and coping is still in its infancy. Further research is needed to address gaps and deepen our understanding of what works best and how in the area of supporting university students' stress-management and coping capacity. Thus, using a randomized-controlled design, this study sought to examine the acceptability and effectiveness of a web-based, self-directed resource for university students containing evidence-based strategies for stress-management and healthy coping. In addition, this study examined whether there would be any added benefit of using a screening approach to direct students to personalized resources aligned with their identified needs. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups; directed to personalized resources aligned with needs, non-directed but received all resources, and waitlist comparison. Main outcomes assessed were participant ratings of acceptability, stress, coping (coping self-efficacy and coping behaviours), and well-being over time.
Specifically, the first objective (1) was to examine potential group differences (directed and non-directed resource groups only) in students' acceptability of the web-based resource over time. It was hypothesized that (H1) acceptability would be higher in the directed group when compared to the non-directed over time. The second objective (2) was to examine the effectiveness of the online self-directed resources in terms of group differences (directed, non-directed, comparison) on outcome measures (i.e., stress, coping, and well-being) and in terms of differences in scores over time between baseline, post, and follow-up measures. It is hypothesized (H2a) that the directed group will show stronger improvements across stress, coping, and well-being outcomes over time than both the non-directed group and the comparison group. It is also hypothesized (H2b) that the non-directed group will show significant improvements across study outcomes relative to the comparison group. Lastly, the third objective (3) was to examine the effectiveness of the overall web-based, self-directed resource in terms of group differences (resource group; merged directed and non-directed versus the comparison group) on outcome measures and in terms of change in scores over time between baseline, post, and follow-up measures (i.e., stress, coping, and well-being). It is hypothesized (H3) that the resource group will show significant improvements across study outcomes in relation to the comparison group.
Participants who expressed interest in participating in the study were asked to complete a brief online demographics survey to facilitate their random assignment into the three different conditions within the study; namely, directed to resources based on reported need in the screening questionnaire (Group 1: directed), non-directed sharing of all resources (Group 2: non-directed), and waitlist comparison (Group 3: comparison). Responses to the demographic questionnaire were used to ensure comparable samples across the different conditions in terms of participants' age, gender, and program of study. Following random assignment to the different conditions, all participants were asked to complete the baseline measures and the screening questionnaire (described in the measures section below). Although all participants were asked to complete the brief screening questionnaire, only those in the directed group subsequently received personalized instruction on how to use the resources and strategies provided in the online resource.
Group 1 (Directed) Immediately following the completion of the baseline survey, Group 1 was given access to the website presenting a collection of stress-management, motivation, healthy coping, well-being, and socializing resources. Additionally, based on their answers to the brief screener, Group 1 was directed to one of three unique pages on the website based on their responses on the screening questionnaire demonstrating low, moderate, or high need for support around stress and coping. The directing process was automated using a scoring algorithm within the survey platform used in this study (i.e., Qualtrics).
Group 2 (Non-directed) Participants in Group 2 followed the same procedure as Group 1; however, they did not receive any personalized instruction and were simply directed to the home page of the website containing resources.
Group 3 (Comparison) Participants in Group 3 constituted the waitlist comparison group. As such, they did not have access to any of the strategies hosted on the website during the data collection phase of the study. Participants in Group 3 were asked to complete online surveys identical to those completed by Groups 1 and 2. Although Group 3 did not have access to the strategies during the project, the full web-based resource was shared with the comparison group at the end of data collection.
In terms of data collection timeline, all groups completed measures regarding their stress, coping, and well-being at the start of the study (Baseline: T1), four weeks after the start of the study (Post: T2), and eight weeks following the start of the study (Follow-up: T3). In addition, participants in Groups 1 and 2 completed a brief check-in to assess resource acceptability two weeks after baseline, which is when the resources were initially shared with participants.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Directed | Experimental | Behavioral: stress management and copingWebsite presenting a collection of stress-management, motivation, healthy coping, well-being, and socializing resources + brief screener directing students to tailored resources based on responses to the screener (demonstrating low, moderate, or high need for support around stress and coping). |
| Non-directed | Experimental | Behavioral: stress management and copingWebsite presenting a collection of stress-management, motivation, healthy coping, well-being, and socializing resources (no tailored resource or screener was received for this group). |
| Waitlist Comparison | No intervention | –Did not have access to the strategies during the project, the full web-based resource was shared with the comparison group at the end of data collection. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- University student
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- -
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| stress management and copingOnline intervention focusing on stress and coping in university students. All resources were grouped into five main categories: managing stress, enhancing performance, adulting, socialising, and well-being. The resource was hosted on a website and presented information in several multimedia formats (i.e., text, audio, video, interactive infographic) to account for diversity of preferences. All students in the intervention groups were provided with unlimited access to the intervention. Furthermore, all students were asked to complete screener questions on their stress and coping, but only students in the intervention group were directed to one of three unique pages on the website based on their responses on the screening questionnaire, demonstrating low, moderate, or high need for support around stress and coping. | Behavioural | Directed, Non-directed |
Primary outcome
Change in Stress
Time frame: Week 1, 5 & 9
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, 1988) is a widely used self-report measure of individuals' perception of stress. This measure contains 10 items in which participants indicate their experience of stress on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never to 4 = very often). Items were adapted to reflect experiences during the past week and include statements such as "In the past week, how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?" Ratings were averaged across items such that higher scores represented greater perceived stress. The PSS has good reliability (Cronbach's α = .89), construct validity, and predictive validity with reports of psychological and physical symptoms.
4 secondary outcomes
Acceptability of the Resource
Time frame: Week 1, 5 & 9
Change in Coping Self-efficacy
Time frame: Week 1, 5 & 9
Change in Coping Behaviours
Time frame: Week 1, 5 & 9
Change in Well-being
Time frame: Week 1, 5 & 9
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Oct 2026.
- BackgroundMa L, Zhang Y, Cui Z. Mindfulness-based interventions for prevention of depressive symptoms in university students: A meta-analytic review. Mindfulness. 2019;10:2209-2224. doi:10.1007/s12671-019-01192-w
- BackgroundAng WHD, Lau ST, Cheng LJ, Chew HSJ, Tan JH, Shorey S, et al. Effectiveness of resilience interventions for higher education students: A meta-analysis and metaregression. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2022;114(7):1670-1694. doi:10.1037/edu0000719
- Background: PubMed 25744536Conley CS, Durlak JA, Kirsch AC. A Meta-analysis of universal mental health prevention programs for higher education students. Prev Sci. 2015 May;16(4):487-507. doi: 10.1007/s11121-015-0543-1.
- BackgroundBöke BN, Mills DJ, Mettler J, Heath NL. Stress and coping patterns of university students. Journal of College Student Development. 2019;60(1):85-103. doi:10.1353/csd.2019.0005
- BackgroundSwanson JA. Trends in literature about emerging adulthood: Review of empirical studies. Emerging Adulthood. 2016;4(6):391-402. doi:10.1177/2167696816630468
- Background: PubMed 10842426Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol. 2000 May;55(5):469-80.
- BackgroundConley CS, Kirsch AC, Dickson DA, Bryant FB. Negotiating the transition to college: Developmental trajectories and gender differences in psychological functioning, cognitive-affective strategies, and social well-being. Emerging Adulthood. 2014;2(3):195-210. doi:10.1177%2F2167696814521808
- Background: PubMed 33243317Hill M, Farrelly N, Clarke C, Cannon M. Student mental health and well-being: Overview and Future Directions. Ir J Psychol Med. 2024 Jun;41(2):259-266. doi: 10.1017/ipm.2020.110. Epub 2020 Nov 27.
- BackgroundStallman HM. Health theory of coping. Australian Psychologist. 2020;55(4) :295-306. doi :10.1111/ap.12465
- Background: PubMed 29685870Harrer M, Adam SH, Fleischmann RJ, Baumeister H, Auerbach R, Bruffaerts R, Cuijpers P, Kessler RC, Berking M, Lehr D, Ebert DD. Effectiveness of an Internet- and App-Based Intervention for College Students With Elevated Stress: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 23;20(4):e136. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9293.
- BackgroundStallman HM. Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian Psychologist. 2010;45(4):249-257. doi:10.1080/00050067.2010.482109
- Background: PubMed 31333198Lattie EG, Adkins EC, Winquist N, Stiles-Shields C, Wafford QE, Graham AK. Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression, Anxiety, and Enhancement of Psychological Well-Being Among College Students: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jul 22;21(7):e12869. doi: 10.2196/12869.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Stress
RecruitingPhase 1
Open-Label Psilocybin Study in Transdiagnostic Population
Transdiagnostic, Depression - Major Depressive Disorder
Active, not recruiting
Aimmune Longitudinal Collaboration Study
Stool Spore Colony Forming Units, Microbiome Composition
Not yet recruiting
Robot-Assisted Meditation for Older Adults With Cognitive Concerns
Cognitive Impairment, Perceived Stress
Recruiting
Stress Modulation and Dynamic Balance
Stress
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Assessing of Behavioral Risk and Response to Electromagnetic and Psychedelic Therapies
PTSD, PTSD - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing stress management and coping in people with Stress and Coping, run by McGill University at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Stress (time frame: Week 1, 5 & 9). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07086001, which also lists 13 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Oct 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 31 Oct 2026.