Internet-delivered Strengths Use Intervention

NCT05474807 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: MEGSIS S3 Pilot
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 50
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The aim of the study will be to test the feasibility and acceptability of a novel online-delivered gamification-based intervention for the identification, development, and use of strengths in the organization. The program will be addressed to employees at the beginning of their careers and will have the aim of boosting their well-being and performance.

Conditions

Burnout, Professional; Mental Health Wellness 1

Keywords

work engagement; burnout; employee wellbeing

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

• Work engagement

  Work engagement will be measured with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). It has 9 items that form three dimensions, each with 3 items: vigor (e.g., "At my work, I feel bursting with energy"), dedication (e.g., "I am enthusiastic about my job"), and absorption (e.g., "I am immersed in my work"). This measure uses a 7-point agreement scale (0 = never, 6 = always).

  Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).

• Psychological capital (PsyCap)

  Psychological capital will be measured with the 12-item Psychological Capital Questionnaire. It has four subscales: hope ("At the moment, I feel quite fulfilled at work."), self-efficacy ("I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues."), resilience ("Usually, at work, I easily get over the stressful aspects."), and optimism ("I am optimistic about what will happen to me in the future regarding my job."). All 12-item are reported on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).

  Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).

• Strengths use

  Strengths use will be measured with a set of six items, rated on a 0 (almost never) to 6 (almost always) Likert scale. A sample item is "I seek opportunities to do my work in a manner that best suits my strong points".

  Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).

Secondary Outcomes (6)

• Burnout

  Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).

• Job satisfaction

  Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).

• Job performance

  Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).

• Positive affect

  Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).

• Life satisfaction

  Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).

Other Outcomes (3)

• Satisfaction with the intervention

  At study completion (post-intervention), an average of 6 weeks.

• System usability

  At study completion (post-intervention), an average of 6 weeks.

• Treatment adherence

  At study completion (post-intervention), an average of 6 weeks.

Study Arms (1)

Intervention group

EXPERIMENTAL

The experimental arm will receive the online strengths use intervention program over a period of 6 weeks, through an LMS software solution.

Behavioral: Internet-delivered strengths use intervention

Interventions

Internet-delivered strengths use intervention BEHAVIORAL

The online strengths use intervention program, will be based on Miglianico et al.'s (2020) general framework, following the theorized five stages: (1) preparation and commitment, (2) identification, (3) integration, (4) action, and (5) evaluation. As to increase participant engagement and motivation, gamification components will be embedded in several of these stages. The entire intervention will be delivered online via an LMS software solution.

Intervention group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 35 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• \- participants should score 4.49 or lower (on a scale from 0 to 6) on work engagement;

You may not qualify if:

• workload which will impede following the intervention program (based on a filter Yes/No question);
• lack of internet access during the period of the implementation of the program (based on a filter Yes/No question).

Sponsors & Collaborators

• West University of Timisoara: lead

Study Sites (1)

West University of Timisoara

Timișoara, Timiș County, 300223, Romania

Location

Related Publications (12)

• Bangor, A., Kortum, P. & Miller, J.A. (2009). Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114-123.

  BACKGROUND

• Camman, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan).

  BACKGROUND

• Crawford JR, Henry JD. The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol. 2004 Sep;43(Pt 3):245-65. doi: 10.1348/0144665031752934.

  PMID: 15333231 BACKGROUND

• Luthans, F. L., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. A. (2007). Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PsyCap) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06483-000

  BACKGROUND

• Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

  BACKGROUND

• Schaufeli WB, Desart S, De Witte H. Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)-Development, Validity, and Reliability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 18;17(24):9495. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249495.

  PMID: 33352940 BACKGROUND

• Tulbure BT, Rusu A, Sava FA, Salagean N, Farchione TJ. A Web-Based Transdiagnostic Intervention for Affective and Mood Disorders: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Ment Health. 2018 May 24;5(2):e36. doi: 10.2196/mental.8901.

  PMID: 29798831 BACKGROUND

• Van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A. B., De Beer, L., & Rothmann Jr, S. (2016). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 960-975. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1193010

  BACKGROUND

• Watson D, Clark LA. Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychol Bull. 1984 Nov;96(3):465-90. No abstract available.

  PMID: 6393179 BACKGROUND

• Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305

  BACKGROUND

• Miglianico, M., Dubreuil, P., Miquelon, P., Bakker, A. B., & Martin-Krumm, C. (2020). Strength use in the workplace: a literature review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(2), 737-764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w

  BACKGROUND

• De Witte, H. (1992). Tussen optimisten en teruggetrokkenen. Een empirisch onderzoek naar het psychosociaal profiel van langdurig werklozen en deelnemers aan de Weer-Werkactie in Vlaanderen [Between optimists and withdrawns. An empirical investigation of the psychosocial profile of longterm unemployed and participants of the Back-to-Work Program in Flanders]. Leuven, Belgium: HIVA

  BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Burnout, Professional; Burnout, Psychological

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Occupational Stress; Occupational Diseases; Stress, Psychological; Behavioral Symptoms; Behavior

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: NA
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: SINGLE GROUP
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Model Details: One-armed study with baseline and post-intervention measurements.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: June 24, 2022
• First Posted: July 26, 2022
• Study Start: November 1, 2022
• Primary Completion: December 27, 2022
• Study Completion: December 27, 2022
• Last Updated: February 28, 2023

Record last verified: 2023-02

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

RO (1)