MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412046560 · doi:10.2196/71032

Optimizing Intervention Components of a Preventive Stress Management mHealth Intervention for Health Care Workers: Experimental Factorial Study

2025· article· en· W4412046560 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leo Kowalski, Anna Finnes, Sabine Koch, Aleksandra Bujacz

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintmHealthIntervention (counseling)Health carePreventive careStress managementPsychologyNursingMedicinePsychological interventionComputer scienceClinical psychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Work stress is a prevalent risk factor for mental health problems, such as burnout and depression. Health care workers, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, face high levels of work stress that make them a vulnerable population in need of support. Digital interventions are a promising way to combat this issue, offering the possibility of scalable programs that are easily accessible. While a wide range of stress management techniques can be incorporated into digital interventions, applying the multiphase optimization strategy enables systematic evaluation of what specific content most contributes to preventing the negative effects of work stress. Objective: The primary aim of this research was to identify which digital intervention components and combinations of components are most effective at preventing symptoms of stress-related health problems. These insights are valuable to inform future intervention development for optimizing intervention design. Methods: This study tested 5 digital intervention components aimed at improving stress management among workers. Engagement and Demands components allow participants to self-reflect on their work engagement and work challenges, while the Control component aids a more action-oriented process considering job crafting and detachment strategies. The Journaling component encourages a deeper reflection, and the Psychoeducation component provides evidence-based strategies for managing stress. In an experimental factorial study, Swedish health care workers (n=297) tested different versions of the intervention containing all possible combinations of these 5 components. Stress-related health outcomes, such as burnout, anxiety, and depression, were measured using questionnaires immediately before, immediately after, and 1 month after the end of the intervention. Results: The most promising intervention effects were observed when the Demands and Control components were present together in the intervention. Including these components led to an increase in social support (β=0.68; P<.001) and job crafting (β=0.41; P=.06) during the intervention, as well as a decrease in symptoms of emotional exhaustion (β=-0.50; P=.005), burnout (β=-0.54; P=.004), and anxiety (β=-0.44; P=.04) after the intervention. Notably, including one of the components without the other made outcomes worse than including neither of these 2 components. Furthermore, mindfulness after the intervention increased when both the Engagement and Demands components (β=0.72; P=.001) were included as well as when the Journaling and Psychoeducation components were included (β=0.46; P=.04). Conclusions: Results indicate that components aiding self-insight should be integrated with components providing actionable advice to achieve optimal intervention effects. Results from this optimization study may inform the development of preventive digital stress management interventions to be tested in future randomized 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.443 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→