Technology-Enabled Intervention to Enhance Mindfulness, Safety, and Health Promotion Among Corrections Professionals: Protocol for a Prospective Quasi-Experimental Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Correction professionals are a highly stressed workforce with heightened risks for depression, suicide, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and injury. These professionals, largely hidden from view, have received little study concerning means to improve their safety, health, and well-being. In other settings, mindfulness has resulted in lowered stress, along with other benefits. We hypothesized that a program that promoted mindfulness combined with more typical health and safety components could uniquely benefit corrections professionals. OBJECTIVE: This project will assess a novel scalable, self-administered program to enhance the mindfulness, safety, and health of a vulnerable worker group. METHODS: In partnership with the Oregon Department of Corrections, we are conducting a prospective quasi-experimental trial of a safety, health, and mindfulness program among 100 corrections professionals from 2 institutions. Survey and physiologic data will be collected at enrollment, upon weekly program completion (3 months), and at 9 months after enrollment. Primary outcome behaviors promoted by the program are being mindful, healthier eating, more physical activity, and greater restorative sleep. Secondary downstream benefits are anticipated in stress level, mood, positive feelings about the organization, vascular health, and cellular aging, along with job performance, injuries, and economic costs. Participants will meet in-person or in a Zoom-type meeting as 3- to 5-member coworker groups during their usual work hours for 30-minute sessions once a week for 12 weeks. The program uses self-guided web-based learning modules that include brief mindfulness practice, and it is accessible by smartphone, tablet, or laptop. Daily mindfulness practice is encouraged between sessions, which is facilitated by the study website and group format. The modules' structure emphasizes prerequisite knowledge, peer support, skill practice, self-monitoring, and enhancing self-efficacy for change. The program continues through self-directed use of the Headspace app following the 12 weekly sessions. RESULTS: Participants are being enrolled, and the intervention is ready to launch. CONCLUSIONS: Although mindfulness training has gained traction for worker well-being, its usual format requires a skilled trainer, an initial retreat, and weekly 2-hour meetings for several weeks. The content is limited to mindfulness without safety or health promotion aspects. The need for skilled trainers and time commitment limits the scalability of the usual mindfulness interventions. The planned program is an innovative combination of technology, e-learning, and a group format to add mindfulness to a safety and health curriculum. If acceptable and effective, the format would facilitate its widespread use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05608889; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05608889. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/45535.
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 | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.011 |
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".