Effect of exercise on fatigue among students

The aim of this study is to assess the effect of an exercise intervention on fatigue and burnout of students. We will use an experimental design in which participants will be randomly allocated to either a 6-week exercise intervention(experimental condition, n=60) or a waitlist (control condition, n=60). The control condition receives the exercise intervention when the experimental condition has completed the exercise intervention. The participants of this study will be university students (Dutch and German) who suffer from fatigue and burnout complaints.

Whereas initially the concept of burn-out was restricted to professions in the human services domain, over time the scope has been broadened to all sorts of professions and occupational groups (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Research indicates that full time students can experience fatigue complaints and burn-out as well (Balogun et al., 1996). According to Mailey et al. (2010) the prevalence of mental health problems among college student is rising. The aim of this study is to find out whether an exercise intervention has positive effects in terms of improved physical fitness [Hypothesis 1], reduced fatigue problems [H2], and improved levels of general health and well-being [H3], cognitive functioning [H4], self-efficacy [H5], and participation in daily life [H6] in a group of university students who suffer from fatigue and burnout complaints.

T1: baseline/pre-screening: Fatigue and burnout complaints (UBOS, FAS, Need for Recovery); indicators of health and well-being (report marks following de Bloom et al., 2010); estimated Vo2max (Conconi test); Cognitive functioning (2-back, SART, Matching Task, CFQ); Self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale);Participation in daily life

T2 to T6 (every week during the 6 week exercise intervention period): Health and Well-being (report marks following de Bloom et al., 2010); exercise experiences

T7: immediately after the intervention: Fatigue and burnout complaints (UBOS, FAS, Need for Recovery); indicators of health and well-being (report marks following de Bloom et al., 2010); estimated Vo2max (Conconi test); Cognitive functioning (2-back, SART, Matching Task, CFQ); Self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale);Participation in daily life

T8: two weeks after the intervention: Fatigue (UBOS/FAS/Need for Recovery); Health and Well-being (report marks following de Bloom et al., 2010); Self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale)
Participation in daily life; exercise

T9: four weeks after the intervention: Fatigue and burnout complaints (UBOS, FAS, Need for Recovery); indicators of health and well-being (report marks following de Bloom et al., 2010); estimated Vo2max (Conconi test); Cognitive functioning (2-back, SART, Matching Task, CFQ); Self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale);Participation in daily life

T10: 12 weeks after the intervention: Fatigue and burnout complaints (UBOS, FAS, Need for Recovery); indicators of health and well-being (report marks following de Bloom et al., 2010); estimated Vo2max (Conconi test); Cognitive functioning (2-back, SART, Matching Task, CFQ); Self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale);Participation in daily life; Vo2 max

The exercise intervention will cover a 6-week period in which the participant will run under supervision of a licensed running trainer twice a week, and independently once a week. The participants will run at moderate intensity. Each running session lasts one hour and includes warming-up, running, walking and cooling-down.

The participants in the control condition (waiting list) receive the exercise intervention when the participants in the experimental condition have completed the exercise intervention.