This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background: While stress management is crucial for student well-being, little is known about the factors influencing students’ intention to use university-based Stress Management Programs (SMP). Aims: This study aims to investigate factors influencing intentions to use on-campus SMP based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2), which comprises Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, Hedonic Motivation, Price Value, and Habit. Methods: The analysis was based on data from n = 24 students from one university who took part in three focus groups (N = 4, 5, 5) and two workshops (N = 10). We applied qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2014) to develop a category system around core UTAUT2 constructs. The model was then expanded with theory-based inductively derived categories to capture additional drivers and barriers. Results: Of the UTAUT2 constructs, Facilitating Conditions represented the most cited key factor influencing the intention to use SMP. Moreover, context-sensitive categorizations were derived for Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy, as well as for the additional UTAUT2 determinants Price Value (tradeoff between usefulness and time investment) and Hedonic Motivation, while no statements could be assigned to both Social Influence and Habit. Trust, Promotion (communication), and Psychological Safety further expanded the conceptual model for the on-campus setting. Limitations: Although this study provides an empirical foundation for understanding the utilization of on-campus SMP, it is based on a small qualitative sample. Conclusion: The findings offer novel qualitative insights for improving program design and implementation, for example, through streamlined registration supported by a digital health recommender system. They thereby expand the established UTAUT2 model to a broader context of on-campus SMP at universities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: