Effects of a Mindfulness Intervention Comprising an App, Web-Based Workshops, and a Workbook on Perceived Stress Among Nurses and Nursing Trainees: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has found digitally supported mindfulness interventions to be effective when used for stress management among workers in high-stress occupations. Findings on digitally supported mindfulness interventions among nurses working in acute inpatient care settings are heterogeneous, lack long-term follow-up, and do not assess adherence and acceptability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and efficacy of a digitally supported mindfulness intervention designed to improve health- and work-related outcomes among nurses and nursing trainees working in acute inpatient care settings. METHODS: We will conduct a multicenter randomized controlled trial using a wait-list control group design. Randomization will be stratified by hospital and job status (nurse or nursing trainee). Recruitment will take place on the web and offline during the working hours of nurses and nursing trainees. The intervention group will receive a digitally supported mindfulness intervention, which will comprise an app, 2 web-based workshops, and a workbook, whereas the wait-list control group will be scheduled to receive the same intervention 14 weeks later. The 2 web-based workshops will be led by a certified mindfulness-based stress reduction trainer. Nurses will use the app and the workbook independently. Self-report web-based surveys will be conducted on the web at baseline, at 10 weeks after allocation, at 24 weeks after allocation, and at 38 weeks after allocation. Outcomes of interest will include perceived stress (primary outcome), health- and work-related variables, and variables related to adherence and acceptability of the digitally supported mindfulness intervention. We will perform intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. RESULTS: Data collection will be completed by the beginning of August 2022. Data analyses will be completed by December 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Our study design, including long-term follow-up and the investigation of variables related to adherence and acceptability, will ensure rigorous evaluation of effectiveness and efficacy. Relative to costly in-person intervention efforts, this program may present a cost-effective and potentially highly scalable alternative. Findings regarding effectiveness, efficacy, adherence, and acceptability will inform stakeholders' decisions regarding the implementation of similar interventions to promote the well-being of nurses and nursing trainees, which may, in turn, alleviate detrimental stress-related outcomes (eg, burnout) because of work-related demands. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00025997; https://tinyurl.com/433cas7u. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37195.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".