Meta Self-Efficacy Internet Intervention to Support Occupational Health in Young Employees: Protocol for Co-Creation and a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supporting young employees as they navigate the changing workplace requires focus on personal resources. Although self-efficacy is a key and malleable resource, its context specificity limits its applicability. To address this, we propose to target meta self-efficacy, a construct reflecting an individual's ability to leverage self-efficacy sources (mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, persuasion, and affective and physiological states) to build self-efficacy specific to any challenge and, in turn, safeguard their occupational health. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to co-create (co-creation phase) and verify the efficacy (randomized controlled trial [RCT] phase) of an internet intervention enhancing meta self-efficacy to support the occupational health of young employees. METHODS: The co-creation phase will be based on the participatory approach principle and comprise 4 focus groups, where a total of 24 participants will contribute to meta self-efficacy-enhancing activities and identify needs for the intervention format. After each focus group, a preliminary qualitative analysis will be conducted, and the intervention draft will be refined. To detect an effect size of d=0.25, the RCT will use a 2-arm parallel design with a total sample size of 600 comparing the meta self-efficacy intervention against a placebo. Assessments will be conducted at the posttest time point and 3- and 6-month follow-ups, with work self-efficacy as the primary outcome and job stress, job affective well-being, and work capabilities as secondary outcomes, as well as meta self-efficacy as the manipulation check. Data will be analyzed using linear mixed-effects models following the intention-to-treat approach. The trial will also examine the impact of adherence and engagement on intervention outcomes and compare treatment credibility. RESULTS: As of November 20, 2025, a total of 24 participants have been recruited, with 3 of 4 focus groups conducted and the final one to be completed by the end of 2025. RCT recruitment is scheduled to start at the beginning of 2026, with the last follow-up expected by the end of 2026. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the placebo control, we expect the intervention to significantly improve young employees' work self-efficacy (primary outcome) and occupational well-being (secondary outcomes). If effective, the meta self-efficacy-enhancing intervention could bolster the ability to cope with various challenges in the health domain and beyond, extending the effect beyond the initial occupational context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06944990; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06944990. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/85082.
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 | 0.033 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.011 |
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".