Virtual Acceptance and Commitment Training to Promote Wellbeing of Staff Supporting Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Staff supporting people with intellectual disabilities may experience work-related stress that adversely impacts their wellbeing and capacity to provide support. Acceptance and Commitment Training interventions like Promotion of Acceptance in Carers and Teachers (PACT) have been shown to be effective for reducing stress and promoting psychological flexibility in direct staff in the United Kingdom. AIMS: We evaluated the feasibility of a virtual adaptation of PACT for staff in Canada. METHODS: Within a single-arm feasibility trial, we assessed five categories of feasibility: acceptability, demand, implementation, adaptation and limited efficacy testing. Between 2021 and 2023, 149 staff consented to participate and 81 completed all measures. RESULTS: The intervention was a feasible and acceptable method of supporting staff wellbeing with promising outcomes in terms of improved psychological flexibility and decreased stress, anxiety and depression. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Future research should explore the benefits of this intervention relative to other staff wellbeing interventions in randomised controlled trials.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".