A Missed Opportunity to Cultivate Positive Attitudes about Mental Health Recovery among Undergraduate Nursing Students – A Quasi-Experimental Controlled Study

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics.

	Control Group		Intervention Group		Total Sample
Baseline characteristic	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender^a
Female	45	83.3	65	90.3	110	87.3
Male	8	14.8	7	9.7	15	11.9
Prefer not to say^b	1	1.9	0	0	1	0.8
Age in years^c
20–29	43	79.6	58	80.6	101	80.2
30–39	10	18.6	10	14	20	15.9
≥40	1	1.9	3	4.2	4	3.2
Prefer not to say^b	0	0	1	1.4	1	0.8
Ethnicity^d
African American  or Black	9	16.7	5	6.9	14	11.1
Asian, Asian American,  or East Asian	7	13	14	19.4	21	16.7
Hispanic or Latino	6	11.1	6	8.3	12	9.5
Jewish	0	0	3	4.2	3	2.4
Middle Eastern	1	1.9	0	0	1	0.8
White	19	35.2	26	36.1	45	35.7
More than one	2	3.7	2	2.8	4	3.2
Prefer not to say^b	10	18.5	16	22.2	26	20.6
A family member has experienced a mental health issue^e
Yes	34	63	40	55.6	74	58.7
No	19	35.2	29	40.3	48	38.1
Prefer not to say^b	1	1.9	3	4.2	4	3.2
A friend has experienced a mental health issue ^f
Yes	35	64.8	46	63.9	81	64.3
No	18	33.3	22	30.6	40	31.7
Prefer not to say^b	4	5.6	4	5.6	5	4

Note: N = 126.

^a Gender did not differ by group, χ2(1) = 0.834, p = .361.

^b Where students preferred not to disclose certain demographic characteristics, the absence was treated as missing data for the analysis.

^c Age did not differ by group, t(123) = 0.648, p = .681, 95% CI [–1.17, 2.31].

^d Ethnicity did not differ by group, χ2(3) = 3.374, p = .338. The following responses for reported ethnicity had the fewest responses and were collapsed into one shared group: Jewish, Middle Eastern, More than one, Hispanic or Latino. There were no statistically significant differences in reported ethnicity between the groups.

^e No difference was found between groups, χ2(1) = 0.480, p = .489. ^fNo difference was found between groups, χ2(1) = 0.035, p = .852.

Table 2. Two–way mixed ANOVA for attitudes toward recovery.

	Control (n = 54)		Intervention (n = 72)			ANOVA
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	Effect	F ratio	df	p	η^2
Consumer Optimism Scale
Interaction					G x T	1.65	1,124	.201	.013
Pretest	3.43	0.53	3.36	0.47
Posttest	3.5	0.55	3.34	0.57
Difference	0.07		−0.02
Time					T	0.49	1,124	.483	.004
Group					G	1.75	1,124	.188	.014

Note: N = 126. G = Group (Control/Intervention); T = Time of testing (Pretest/Posttest); ANOVA = analysis of variance.

Table 3. Correlations among consumer optimism and prejudice variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Consumer Optimism Scale	3.39	0.49	—
2. PPMI-SV	3.86	0.97	−0.54*	—
3. PPD-SV	3.56	0.96	−0.60*	0.87*	—
4. PPS-SV	4.34	0.99	−0.43*	0.79*	0.71*	—

Note: N = 126. Prejudice toward People with Mental Illness, Shortened Version (PPMI-SV), Prejudice toward People with Depression, Shortened Version (PPD-SV), and Prejudice toward People with Schizophrenia, Shortened Version (PPS-SV).

* p < .001, two-tailed.