Efficacy of Internet-delivered Strengths Use Intervention

NCT05779501 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: MEGSIS S3 RCT
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 167
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The aim of the study will be to test the efficacy of a novel online-delivered gamification-based intervention for the identification, development, and use of strengths in the workplace. The program will be addressed to young employees and will have the aim of boosting their well-being and performance.

Conditions

Mental Health Wellness; Professional Burnout

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (4)

• 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 scale (0 =never, 6 = always). Higher scores represent higher work engagement.

  Change from baseline to mid-intervention and post-intervention (approximately 3 weeks and 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). Higher scores represent higher PsyCap.

  Change from baseline to mid-intervention and post-intervention (approximately 3 weeks and 6 weeks).

• Strengths use

  The Strengths Use subscale from the Strengths Use and Deficit Correction questionnaire (SUDCO). I has 6 items, rated on a 0 (almost never) to 6 (almost always) scale. A sample item is "I seek opportunities to do my work in a manner that best suits my strong points". Higher scores represent higher levels of strengths use.

  Change from baseline to mid-intervention and post-intervention (approximately 3 weeks and 6 weeks).

• Strengths identification, use and development

  A set of 18 items, rated on a 0 (almost never) to 6 (almost always) scale, was developed by the team of experts involved in this study. Higher scores represent higher levels of strengths use, identification, and development.

  Change from baseline to mid-intervention and post-intervention (approximately 3 weeks and 6 weeks).

Secondary Outcomes (4)

• 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).

• Employability

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

Other Outcomes (3)

• Life satisfaction

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

• Satisfaction with the intervention

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

• Satisfaction with the intervention

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

Study Arms (2)

Intervention group

EXPERIMENTAL

The experimental arm will receive the online strengths use intervention program over a period of 4 weeks, through an LMS software solution.

Behavioral: Internet-delivered strengths use intervention

Waiting-list control group

OTHER

The waiting-list control arm will receive the same intervention immediately after the intervention group finishes and will have filled in the post-test outcomes measures.

Behavioral: Waiting-list

Interventions

Internet-delivered strengths use intervention BEHAVIORAL

The online strengths use intervention program follows the theorized five stages of strengths use interventions: (1) preparation and commitment, (2) identification, (3) integration, (4) action, and (5) evaluation. To increase participant engagement and motivation, gamification components are embedded in several stages. The intervention was previously tested through a feasibility and acceptability trial (NCT05474807). The entire intervention will be delivered online via an LMS software solution.

Intervention group

Waiting-list BEHAVIORAL

The waiting-list arm will serve as the control group, filling in only the outcome measure at the same time as the intervention group participants. After the intervention group finishes participating in the intervention, the waiting-list participants will benefit from the same internet-delivered strengths use program.

Waiting-list control group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 39 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• Not other than the age of the participants.

You may not qualify if:

• Lack of internet access during the period of the implementation of the program (prescreened during enrolment).
• Controlled variables:
• Participants levels of work engagement and work experience will be controlled for by stratified randomization. For each of the two factors we will created three strata (low level: lowest - 33rd percentile; moderate level: 34th - 66th percentile; high level: 67th percentile - highest), and the randomization will be applied for each stratum.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• West University of Timisoara: lead

Study Sites (1)

West University of Timisoara

Timișoara, Timiș County, 300223, Romania

Location

Related Publications (10)

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

  BACKGROUND

• Luthans, F. L., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. A. (2007). Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PsyCap) [Database record]. APAPsycTests. 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: Across-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: aliterature 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 vanlangdurig werklozen en deelnemers aan de Weer-Werkactie in Vlaanderen [Between optimists and withdrawns. An empiricalinvestigation 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

Interventions

Waiting Lists

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

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

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Appointments and Schedules; Organization and Administration; Health Services Administration

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: PREVENTION
• Intervention Model: SEQUENTIAL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Model Details: Two-armed randomized trial with waiting-list control and pre-, mid-, and post-intervention measurements.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: February 27, 2023
• First Posted: March 22, 2023
• Study Start: February 15, 2023
• Primary Completion: August 15, 2023
• Study Completion: August 15, 2023
• Last Updated: October 5, 2023

Record last verified: 2023-02

Locations

RO (1)