Exploring the acceptability of online mental health interventions among university teaching staff: Implications for intervention dissemination and uptake

Background: University teaching staff may be a first point of contact for students in need of support for mental health problems. University students report willingness to use online mental health services. However, little is known about the attitudes and behaviours of teaching staff with regard to online mental health resources. Information from this important gatekeeper group is relevant to the development and dissemination of online mental health interventions within a university setting. Methods: An anonymous online survey was sent via e-mail to staff involved in teaching and/or supervising students at a moderately-sized Australian university. The survey measured the following: demographic information, experiences with student mental health, attitudes about the value and utility of online health resources, and willingness to recommend online mental health resources to students. Results: A total of 224 university lecturers, tutors, course convenors and research supervisors completed the survey. Approximately half of respondents were aware of online resources for mental health problems. The majority of respondents considered online mental health resources to be helpful for accessing information and facilitating or complementing face-to-face mental health care. However, only 22.3% believed that online services are a credible treatment option and only 4% believed that they offer the same quality of care as face-to-face services. Less than half of participants were willing to recommend online interventions to students, but the majority were willing to learn more about these resources. The most commonly reported concerns about recommending online mental health resources were that it is not part of the role of teaching staff to recommend these resources, and that online resources are low-quality, potentially dangerous, and unsuitable for managing complex mental health problems. Conclusions: Results of the survey suggest that many university teaching staff are sceptical about the quality and effectiveness of online mental health interventions and don't believe that it is their role to intervene in student mental health. This may affect their willingness to recommend these resources to students. Strategies to increase awareness of the quality and effectiveness of online mental health programmes, as well as opportunities to enable staff to provide input into the development of new online interventions may be beneficial. An important limitation of the study is response bias, in that responders were potentially more likely to have encountered student mental health problems than non-responders. Thus, the findings should be interpreted with caution and may not represent the views and experiences of all teaching staff.