The role of psychological variables in improving resilience: Comparison of an online intervention with a face-to-face intervention. A randomised controlled clinical trial in students of health sciences

Most studies on improving resilience lack representative samples and pre- and post-intervention assessments. Results regarding the effectiveness of online interventions versus face-to-face interventions are mixed. To evaluate the effectiveness of online and face-to-face programmes for the improvement of coping strategies to develop resilience to stressful situations, and to assess their relationship with personality traits, mood, and academic stressors. Randomised controlled clinical trial. Three-armed parallel design. 245 students of the Nursing and Physical Therapy Degree. Students were randomly assigned to the control group (CG), intervention group 1 (IG-1, face-to-face) or intervention group 2 (IG-2, online). They were assessed after the intervention with the following instruments: the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), the Academic Stressors Scale, the Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE), the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and the NEO-FFI scale. Negative affect was higher in IG-1 (p = 0.12). The greatest stressors were methodological deficiencies of the teaching staff, academic overload, and beliefs about academic performance. The most widely used coping strategies were “Active Problem-Focused Coping” and “Seeking Social Support”. There were differences between IG-1 and IG-2 only regarding “Focus on and Venting of Emotions” (p = 0.086). On the Resilience scale, “Persistence, Tenacity, and Self-Efficacy” was higher in the CG, and there were differences with IG-1 (p = 0.06). With respect to the traits measured by the NEO-FFI questionnaire, higher levels of emotional instability (neuroticism) were observed in IG-1 than in the CG (p = 0.06). The results of both interventions are similar, with increased self-awareness of negative personality traits, which is useful for those ignoring their areas for improvement. In addition, these factors are further increased in individuals with high levels of neuroticism and low levels of extraversion. The online intervention was as effective as the face-to-face intervention. •Methodological deficiencies of the teaching staff is the greatest factor of academic stress in the students analysed•A brief cognitive-behavioural intervention, online or face-to-face, yield similar results.•Low levels of extraversion and neuroticism make individuals mor aware of their areas for self-improvement.•Online resilience training for health sciences students is an efficient approach to improving resilience.