A Web-Based Intervention Using "Five Ways to Wellbeing" to Promote Well-Being and Mental Health: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compromised well-being and mental health problems pose a significant threat to individuals and societies worldwide. Resource-intensive psychological treatments alone cannot alleviate this burden. There is a need for low-cost, evidence-based interventions aimed at preventing illness and promoting well-being. Five activity domains appear to be linked with well-being promotion across populations: connecting with others, being active, taking notice, learning, and being generous/giving. The activities mentioned are part of the Five Ways to Wellbeing framework and the web-based intervention Five Ways to Wellbeing for All (5waysA). OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial aims to test the effects of the 5waysA intervention, a web-based, low-cost, well-being-promoting measure targeting the general population. To date, the Five Ways to Wellbeing framework has not been tested in this specific format. The 5waysA intervention comprises 2 webinars and SMS text message reminders delivered over a 10-week period. METHODS: In 2021, a total of 969 study participants from various regions across Norway were openly recruited through a web page. They were then randomly assigned to either an intervention group or 1 of 2 waiting list control groups, namely, active or passive. Self-reported life satisfaction (Satisfaction With Life Scale [SWLS]), flourishing (Flourishing Scale [FS]), positive emotions, anxiety, and depression symptoms (Hopkins Symptom Checklist-8 [HSCL-8]) were assessed before the intervention, at 4 weeks into the intervention, and 1-2 weeks after the intervention (over 10 weeks). Data analysis was conducted using linear mixed (multilevel) models. RESULTS: After 10 weeks, 453 participants (171 in the intervention group and 282 in the waiting list control group) were assessed on outcome variables, with a dropout rate of 53.2% (516/969). Results revealed a significantly greater increase in the intervention group compared with the controls for SWLS (b=0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.23; P=.001), FS (b=0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.30; P=.001), positive emotions (b=0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.60; P<.001), and these factors combined into a global well-being measure (b=0.28, CI 0.16-0.39; P<.001). Effect sizes (Cohen d) for the well-being outcomes ranged from 0.30 to 0.49. In addition, a significant decrease in anxiety and depressive symptoms was observed (b=-0.17, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.04; P=.001) with an effect size (Cohen d) of -0.20. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the web-based 5waysA intervention could serve as an effective approach for enhancing well-being and mental health within the general population. This study offers individuals, policy makers, and local stakeholders an accessible and potentially cost-effective well-being intervention that could be easily implemented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04784871; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04784871.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".