Efficacy of a Multicomponent Positive Psychology Self-Help Intervention: Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Positive psychology interventions have been found to enhance well-being and decrease clinical symptomatology. However, it is still unknown how flourishing can also be increased. Although multicomponent interventions seem to be necessary for this purpose, different formats can be used. A cost-effective approach could be a positive psychology-based self-help book with tailored email support to reach large target groups and to prevent dropout. OBJECTIVE: This study will evaluate the efficacy of a comprehensive multicomponent self-help intervention with or without email support on well-being and flourishing, and will seek to determine the working mechanisms underlying the intervention. METHODS: In this 3-armed, parallel, randomized controlled trial, 396 participants with low or moderate levels of well-being and without clinical symptomatology will be randomly assigned to (1) a self-help book condition with weekly email support, (2) a self-help book condition without email support but with a weekly information email, or (3) a waiting list control condition. Online measurements will be assessed at baseline, at post-test (3 months after baseline), and at 6 and 12 months after baseline. RESULTS: The primary outcomes are well-being and flourishing (ie, high levels of well-being). Secondary outcomes are the well-being components included in the intervention: positive emotion, use of strengths, optimism, self-compassion, resilience, and positive relations. Other measures include depressive and anxiety symptoms, personality traits, direct medical and non-medical costs, life-events, and client satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This study will add knowledge to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent positive psychology intervention. We will also explore who can benefit most from this intervention. If the intervention is found to be effective, our results will be especially relevant for public mental health services, governments, and primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register NTR4297; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4297 (Archived by WebCite at http://webcitation.org/6Uwb5SUUM).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".