Feasibility of Therapy Integrating Peer-sharing, Technology, Aerobic and Resistance Training (TIPSTART)

One-hour interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of participants. Specifically, participants were asked open-ended about aspects of their life (financial, emotional, familial, social, health) they felt were most impacted by their experiences in the TIPSTART program, as well as the most memorable/standout services. In addition, participants were asked about any negative or unintended consequences of their participation, such as deterioration of symptoms, adverse events, novel symptoms, unwanted events, etc.

The percentage of sessions attended out of 10, as well as the percentage of total weeks participants reported adherence to the minimum physical activity prescription (public health guidelines of 150 minutes) and weekly mental exercises, will be used to represent adherence to our TIPSTART intervention.

Participants were asked to indicate (by checking boxes), "Which of the following on-campus/ remote mental health resources at your university are you aware of (whether or not you have utilized them). Please check all that apply."

Please describe any in-person or remote mental health resources you have utilized (not affiliated with your university) over the past 5 weeks. This could include, but is not limited to in-person talk therapy or telecounseling with a private practice therapist, a rehabilitation center, outpatient clinic, app-based services, etc. Which of the following on-campus/ remote mental health resources at UIUC have you used in the past 5 weeks? Which of the follow on-campus/ remote mental health resources at UIUC have you used the most in the past 5 weeks? (if you have not used any, please select "None"). How many times have you used this resource in the past 5 weeks?

Physical activity at baseline will be assessed via the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (GLTEQ; Godin, 2011). The GLTEQ assesses leisure-time activity across three modes of activity: strenuous, moderate, and mild, in terms of frequency and duration. Weekly frequencies of strenuous, moderate, and mild activities were multiplied by nine, five, and three, respectively to create the total score or number of units. According to this score, 24 units or more is indicative of an active individual, whereas any score below 24 is indicative of a non-active individual.

The 15-item Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR) will be used to assess meaningful aspects of recovery. Each item is scored on a 4-point scale (0= disagree strongly, 1=disagree, 2=neither agree nor disagree, 3=agree, 4=agree strongly) and items are summed to create a composite. Higher scores are indicative of recovery.

The 17-item Adult Resilience Measured-Revised (ARM-R; Jeffries, McGarrigle, \& Ungar, 2018) will be used to assess perceived social-ecological resilience. The ARM-R utilizes a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1=Not at all to 5=A lot) and it has two subscales: personal (10 items) and relational (7 items) resilience. Items are summed creating minimum and maximum scores of 10 to 50 for personal resilience and 10 to 35 for relational resilience, where higher scores reflect higher resilience.

The 18-item Perceptions of Academic Stress (PAS) scale by Bedewy and Gabriel (2015) was used to assess academic domain-specific stress. For example, participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with statement such as, "Am confident that I will be a successful student," on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree). The PAS scale also addresses sources of stress, such as, "Teachers have unrealistic expectations of me" (1=Strongly agree, 5=Strongly disagree). Subscale scores will be computed by summing respective items and calculating an un-weighted averaged. Some scores will be reversed to ensure that lower composite scores reflect lower perceived stress.

Academic engagement was assessed via self-report using a 4-item questionnaire by Hu and Wolniak (2013). Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the frequency they they worked with other students on schoolwork outside of class, discussed readings or classes with students and faculty outside of class, and worked harder than thought to meet an instructor's expectations on a 6-point Likert scale (response options ranged from 1=less than once a month to 6=four or more times a week). Items are summed and averaged and higher scores indicate higher levels of academic engagement.

Social engagement was assessed via self-report using a scale by Hu and Wolniak (2013). Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the frequency they they participate in events sponsored by a fraternity or sorority, residence hall activities, events by groups reflecting own culture heritage, and community service activities on a 5-point Likert scale (response options ranged from 1=never to 5=very often). Items are summed and averaged and higher scores indicate higher levels of academic engagement.

Six items (e.g. "Because of my school work, I have no time," "I have enough time for my friends") were used to assess perceived time availability for school and social life. Items were rated on a 6-point Likert ranging from "Completely Disagree" to "Completely Agree." Items 2 and 3 are reverse-coded. A composite score is derived by adding and averaging, with higher scores reflecting greater balance between schoolwork and life.

The Self-efficacy to Regulate Work and Life Questionnaire is a 5-item questionnaire that assesses how confident individuals are in regulating their work and non-work domains (Chan et al., 2016).The five items include: 1) "How confident are you in changing your lifestyle to achieve a good work-life balance?," 2) "How confident are you in finding out how to balance work and life?," 3) "How confident are you in achieving your ideal work-life balance?," 4) "How confident are you in implementing strategies to achieve work-life balance?," and 5) "How confident are you in inventing ways to balance your work and life?." Responses to all items are based on a scale ranging from 0 (cannot do at all) to 100 (highly certain can do). The composite score is calculated by summing and averaging the five items, with higher scores indicating that individuals are more confident in their abilities to cope with work-life challenges.

The Physical Activity Self-Regulation Scale (PASR-12; Umstattd, Motl, Wilcox, Saunders, \& Watford, 2009) will be used to assess the use of self-regulation strategies for engaging in physical activity. The PASR-12 is a 12-item questionnaire with responses ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). A total score can be calculated by summing up responses to all the items. There are also six subscales (self-monitoring, goal-setting, social support, reinforcement, time management, and relapse prevention), however, research by our lab has found that this scale is not uni-dimensional. We will use a modified version of the scale. Higher score reflects higher use of self-regulation strategies.

The Exercise Planning and Schedule Scale (EPSS; Rovniak, Anderson, Winett, \& Stephens, 2002) is a 10-item questionnaire that assesses exercise scheduling and planning. Each question is based on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (does not describe me) to 5 (describes me completely). The EPSS composite score is calculated by reverse-scoring items 2, 3, and 7 then summing and averaging the 10-items to create a composite score. Higher scores indicate more scheduling and planning done for exercise. In addition, we used a novel questionnaire asking participants the extent to which the following 5 statements are true (4-point Likert scale range: 1=Not at all true, 4 = Absolutely true). "For the next month, I have already planned... which days (frequency; F), the intensity (I), how long (time; T), which types (T), and where (location; L) I will exercise." F.I.T.T.L. scores will be averaged and higher scores represent greater planning.

A 13-item questionnaire will be used to assess self-efficacy specific to possible barriers affecting exercise adherence. All items will be answered on a 0-100% Likert scale in increments of 10%. Prior research suggests that this may not be a uni-dimensional scale and therefore a composite will be based on a 4-item composite. These four items best reflect participants' confidence to self-regulate in the face of actual barriers, including exercising regularly in the face of bad weather, while on vacation, without encouragement, and when under personal stress. These four items will be averaged to generate our main outcome of interest, and the remaining nine items will be assessed for exploratory purposes.

Self-efficacy to engage in physical activity will be assessed using the Lifestyle Self-efficacy Scale (E McAuley et al., 2009), which asks participants about their belief in their ability to be physically active five or more times per week at a moderate intensity, for at least 30 minutes, for six months.

Participants were asked to indicate the frequency (0=Never, 4=Very Often) that they received companionship, informational, and esteem support from friends or an expert (6 total sub-scales derived from the Multidimensional Social Support Scale; Chogahara, 1999). Each 5-item sub-scale score will be computed by summing and averaging the five numeric responses. Higher scores reflect higher levels of perceived social support.