Feasibility of a digital training for mental health promotion in young people with climate change related distress

Feasibility and initials signals of efficacy of a digital training for mental health promotion in young people with climate change-related distress

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN33613914

Enrollment

Registered

2024-11-06

Start date

2024-11-15

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2026-01-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Mental health promotion in young people with climate change-related distress Mental and Behavioural Disorders

Interventions

In a 2-arm, parallel-group, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT), service users will be randomly allocated to the CliMACT training in addition to Care-As-Usual (experimental condition) o

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

14 Years to 25 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Aged between 14 and 25 years 2. Scores of >=3.5 for the Distress subscale AND >=2.3 for the Impairment subscale on the Climate Change Distress and Impairment scale (Hepp et al., 2023)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Current treatment for or diagnosis of a severe mental illness (F32.2, F32.3, F20, F22-29, F30.x, F60.3) AND/OR significant reduction in functioning in the past 30 days (WHODAS 2.0, (WHO, 2010) >=41). 2. indications of acute endangerment of self and others 3. Not able to give informed consent or in case of minors: no consent by parents / legal guardians. 4. Insufficient language abilities in the available languages: German

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
1. Recruitment is measured using the monthly recruitment rate in the month of the highest recruitment rate 2. Randomization is measured using the number of participants successfully randomized after successful screening 3. Retention is measured using the percentage of retained participants at post-intervention and 4-week follow-up 4. Feasibility of cost of care measures for economic evaluations is measured using EQ-5D-Y (Rabin & Challo, 2001) and CSRI (Chisholm et al., 2000) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 5. Satisfaction is measured using a debriefing questionnaire and the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G, Messner et al., 2020) at post-intervention 6. Participant adherence is measured using the number of attended sessions and the number of completed consolidating and interactive EMI tasks during intervention 7. Fidelity to intervention protocol is measured using a component checklist and the ACT-Fidelity Measure (ACT-FM, O’Neill et al., 2019) during intervention 8. Active ingredients are measured using the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-SR, Hatcher & Gillaspi, 2006), Mobile Agnew Relationship Measure (mARM, Berry et al., 2018), and CliMACT training components at post-intervention and during intervention 9. Mental well-being is measured using the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS, Tennant et al., 2007) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 10. Quality of life, including emotional and social domains, is measured using the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHO-QoLBref, WHOQOL Group, 1998) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 11. Subjective happiness is measured using the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS, Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 12. Climate change distress is measured using the Climate Change Distress and Impairment Scale (CCDIS, Hepp et al., 2023) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 13. General psychological distress is	—

Measure

Time frame

1. Recruitment is measured using the monthly recruitment rate in the month of the highest recruitment rate 2. Randomization is measured using the number of participants successfully randomized after successful screening 3. Retention is measured using the percentage of retained participants at post-intervention and 4-week follow-up 4. Feasibility of cost of care measures for economic evaluations is measured using EQ-5D-Y (Rabin & Challo, 2001) and CSRI (Chisholm et al., 2000) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 5. Satisfaction is measured using a debriefing questionnaire and the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G, Messner et al., 2020) at post-intervention 6. Participant adherence is measured using the number of attended sessions and the number of completed consolidating and interactive EMI tasks during intervention 7. Fidelity to intervention protocol is measured using a component checklist and the ACT-Fidelity Measure (ACT-FM, O’Neill et al., 2019) during intervention 8. Active ingredients are measured using the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-SR, Hatcher & Gillaspi, 2006), Mobile Agnew Relationship Measure (mARM, Berry et al., 2018), and CliMACT training components at post-intervention and during intervention 9. Mental well-being is measured using the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS, Tennant et al., 2007) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 10. Quality of life, including emotional and social domains, is measured using the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHO-QoLBref, WHOQOL Group, 1998) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 11. Subjective happiness is measured using the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS, Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 12. Climate change distress is measured using the Climate Change Distress and Impairment Scale (CCDIS, Hepp et al., 2023) at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up 13. General psychological distress is

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
There are no secondary outcome measures	—

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactLeonie Fleck

leonie.fleck@zi-mannheim.de+49 62117032370

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026