Exploring User Perspectives on Brief Reflective Questioning Activities for Stress Management: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current online interventions dedicated to assisting individuals in managing stress and negative emotions often necessitate substantial time commitments. This can be burdensome for users, leading to high dropout rates and reducing the effectiveness of these interventions. This highlights an urgent need for concise digital activities that individuals can swiftly access during instances of negative emotions or stress in their daily lives. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the viability of using a brief digital exercise, specifically a reflective questioning activity (RQA), to help people reflect on their thoughts and emotions about a troubling situation. The RQA is designed to be quick, applicable to the general public, and scalable without requiring a significant support structure. METHODS: We conducted 3 simultaneous studies. In the first study, we recruited 48 participants who completed the RQA and provided qualitative feedback on its design through surveys and semistructured interviews. In the second study, which involved 215 participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk, we used a between-participants design to compare the RQA with a single-question activity. Our hypotheses posited that the RQA would yield greater immediate stress relief and higher perceived utility, while not significantly altering the perception of time commitment. To assess these, we measured survey completion times and gathered multiple self-reported scores. In the third study, we assessed the RQA's real-world impact as a periodic intervention, exploring engagement via platforms such as email and SMS text messaging, complemented by follow-up interviews with participants. RESULTS: In our first study, participants appreciated the RQA for facilitating structured reflection, enabling expression through writing, and promoting problem-solving. However, some of the participants experienced confusion and frustration, particularly when they were unable to find solutions or alternative perspectives on their thoughts. In the second study, the RQA condition resulted in significantly higher ratings (P=.003) for the utility of the activity and a statistically significant decrease (P<.001) in perceived stress rating compared with the single-question activity. Although the RQA required significantly more time to be completed (P<.001), there was no statistically significant difference in participants' subjective perceived time commitment (P=.37). Deploying the RQA over 2 weeks in the third study identified some potential challenges to consider for such activities, such as the monotony of doing the same activity several times, the limited affordances of mobile phones, and the importance of having the prompts align with the occurrence of new troubling situations. CONCLUSIONS: This paper describes the design and evaluation of a brief online self-reflection activity based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles. Our findings can inform practitioners and researchers in the design and exploration of formats for brief interventions to help people with everyday struggles.
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 | 0.073 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".