Effects of an online group program based on acceptance and commitment therapy for young employees on well-being: single-case A-B design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study examined the effects of an online group program based on acceptance and commitment therapy for young employees on employee well-being. Methods: Using a single-case A-B design, this study implemented a program that spanned three 90-min sessions among 24 employees of a Japanese company, who were up to 3 years after graduation from university or postgraduate studies. The baseline (times 1-5) phase was conducted across 15 days, followed by the intervention, which was conducted over 16 days. The intervention (times 6-10) phase was conducted over 35 days following session 1. Results: Fourteen participants met the inclusion criteria. A hierarchical Bayesian model indicated that the hypotheses were not supported in terms of the primary outcome of well-being and process outcome of psychological inflexibility of 10 employees because the credible interval included 0 (well-being: expected a posteriori estimation [EAP] 0.22; 95% credible interval, -0.31 to 0.81; Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: EAP -2.20; 95% credible interval, -5.60 to 1.31). Tau-U for well-being varied from -0.56 to 0.84 among the participants. Similarly, for the secondary outcomes of 13 employees, the hypotheses were not supported for work performance, work engagement, and stress reaction (World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire: EAP -0.32; 95% credible interval, -1.22 to 0.57; Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-3: EAP -0.08; 95% credible interval, -0.47 to 0.34; stress reaction: EAP -0.49; 95% credible interval, -3.76 to 2.66). Conclusions: The online group program implemented in this study did not improve employee well-being. Trial registration: The study protocol was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (ID: UMIN000042912).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".