Evaluating the Efficacy of a Multifaceted Health Behavior Training Program on Psychological Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a comprehensive Health Behavior Training Program in reducing psychological distress among adults. The program, integrating cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, stress management, and health education, sought to provide participants with effective tools to manage distress and improve overall well-being. A randomized controlled trial design was employed, involving 50 participants with mild to moderate psychological distress, randomly assigned to either the experimental group receiving the Health Behavior Training Program or a control group receiving no intervention. The intervention consisted of 8 weekly sessions, each lasting 90 minutes. Psychological distress was measured at baseline, post-intervention, and at a three-month follow-up using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). The experimental group exhibited a significant reduction in psychological distress scores from pre-test (Mean = 33.81, SD = 4.19) to post-test (Mean = 27.44, SD = 4.42) and maintained these improvements at the three-month follow-up (Mean = 27.39, SD = 4.37). In contrast, the control group showed no significant changes in distress scores over time. Analysis of variance with repeated measurements indicated significant effects of time (F(2) = 6.33, p < 0.01), group (F(1) = 7.10, p < 0.01), and their interaction (F(2) = 6.40, p < 0.01) on psychological distress scores, underscoring the effectiveness of the intervention. The Health Behavior Training Program significantly reduced psychological distress among participants compared to a control group, with sustained effects at a three-month follow-up. These findings support the implementation of multifaceted health behavior interventions as effective tools for managing psychological distress and enhancing mental health outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".