MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141472015 · doi:10.2196/resprot.4162

Efficacy of a Multicomponent Positive Psychology Self-Help Intervention: Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2015· article· en· W2141472015 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimismPsychological interventionPositive psychologyFlourishingRandomized controlled trialPsychologyClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)PsychosocialMindfulnessAnxietyLife satisfactionMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.265
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it