ePSICONUT: An e-Health Programme to Improve Emotional Health and Lifestyle in University Students

Abstract

The use of information and communication technologies in the health field is known as eHealth. Nowadays, the application of technological and digital tools for maintaining/improving physical and mental health is experiencing an exponential boom. These tools have been perceived as a powerful support for face-to-face therapies and lifestyle changes. Nevertheless, there is not enough scientific research that analyses the impact and consequences of eHealth interventions. More studies are needed to validate its application. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of eHealth tools in a programme called ePSICONUT. This programme was created to promote healthy lifestyle habits in university students. The sample consisted of 16 university students from the Dominican Republic aged 18–24 years (x¯ = 20.69; s = 1.74). ePSICONUT was developed in 12 weeks and its impact was analyzed by comparing the initial and the final psychological and lifestyle tests results, which were completed online by the participants. Results reported that the professionally supervised use of eHealth tools was associated with better psychological well-being, lees anxiety and depression, and better lifestyle habits (such as diet quality), even in stressful and changing situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic circumstances. However, more studies are needed to validate and promote the use of eHealth-based intervention programmes.

Digital behaviour change interventions to increase vegetable intake in adults: a systematic review

“…The 30 included studies comprised of RCTs ( n = 22) [ 33 – 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 – 47 , 49 – 53 , 55 , 57 , 61 , 62 ], a CRCT ( n = 1) [ 48 ] and non-randomized trials ( n = 7) [ 39 , 42 , 54 , 56 , 58 – 60 ]. Intervention duration ranged from 3 days [ 35 ] to 2 years [ 43 , 51 ]; more than half ( n = 17; 57%) of studies had a follow-up period less than 6 months.…”

“…Intervention duration ranged from 3 days [ 35 ] to 2 years [ 43 , 51 ]; more than half ( n = 17; 57%) of studies had a follow-up period less than 6 months. Most studies were conducted in Australia [ 41 , 42 , 45 , 48 , 52 , 58 , 61 ], followed by the United States [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 49 , 53 ], Spain [ 34 , 43 , 50 , 56 , 59 ], the Netherlands [ 40 , 51 ], the United Kingdom [ 47 , 62 ], Belgium [ 60 ], France [ 44 ], pan-European [ 57 ], Israel [ 33 ], Iran [ 36 ], Brazil [ 39 ], Bangladesh [ 46 ], China [ 54 ] and Mongolia [ 55 ]. The studies included sample sizes ranging from 16 [ 56 ] to 5,055 [ 51 ], with 16 studies (53%) including a sample of 150 or more participants.…”

“…Most studies were conducted in Australia [ 41 , 42 , 45 , 48 , 52 , 58 , 61 ], followed by the United States [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 49 , 53 ], Spain [ 34 , 43 , 50 , 56 , 59 ], the Netherlands [ 40 , 51 ], the United Kingdom [ 47 , 62 ], Belgium [ 60 ], France [ 44 ], pan-European [ 57 ], Israel [ 33 ], Iran [ 36 ], Brazil [ 39 ], Bangladesh [ 46 ], China [ 54 ] and Mongolia [ 55 ]. The studies included sample sizes ranging from 16 [ 56 ] to 5,055 [ 51 ], with 16 studies (53%) including a sample of 150 or more participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 18 years [ 54 ] to 70 years [ 38 ], with many ( n = 19) conducted in mid-aged and older adult populations (> 40 years).…”

“…As shown in Table 1 , vegetable intake was a primary outcome in 63% of studies ( n = 19). Of these, some studies reported vegetable intake as a component of a Mediterranean diet score ( n = 4), International Diet Quality Index ( n = 1), m-Alternate Healthy Eating Index [ 62 ] or an overall diet quality index for Dominican adults [ 56 ]. Vegetable intake was assessed in most studies using brief diet questions [ 35 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 54 – 56 , 58 , 60 ], followed by a food frequency questionnaire [ 33 , 37 – 40 , 48 , 51 , 57 , 61 , 62 ], 24 h recall [ 57 , 59 ], Mediterranean diet adherence screener [ 34 , 43 , 50 ], and an image-based dietary assessment tool [ 52 ].…”

“…Only nine studies (30%) reported statistically significant improvements in vegetable intake (i.e., designated as effective interventions) compared with a control group [ 38 , 44 , 55 ] or compared with baseline. In the latter case, this included pre-post interventions [ 56 , 58 ], uncontrolled randomised trials [ 42 ] and RCTs with no statistically significant increase in the control group (and no statistical comparison for between-group changes reported) [ 35 , 54 , 60 ]. There was heterogeneity in the method of reporting improvements in vegetable intake among effective studies, including serves/day and adherence to guidelines.…”