Cited by 140Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDigital Mental Health InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Self‐Compassion Online: A Pilot Study of an Internet‐Based Self‐Compassion Cultivation Program for Psychology Trainees

Finlay‐Jones, Amy, Kane, Robert, Rees, Clare·2017·Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Objective: The current study sought to conduct a preliminary investigation of the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel, self‐guided online self‐compassion training for reducing psychological distress and increasing self‐compassion and happiness among psychology trainees. Method: A 6‐week online self‐compassion cultivation program was developed and delivered to Australian psychology trainees (n = 37), and a pre‐experimental repeated‐measures design was used to collect change data on self‐compassion, happiness, perceived stress, emotion regulation difficulties as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. Results: Participants reported significant increases in self‐compassion and happiness and significant decreases in depression, stress, and emotion regulation difficulties between pretest and posttest, with the majority of changes maintained at 3‐month follow up. Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence supporting the effectiveness and acceptability of online self‐compassion training as a positive, integrated, and meaningful way of reducing distress and promoting self‐compassion and happiness among trainee psychologists.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jclp.22375

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The attrition rate in the present study was elevated (11/26; 42%) and falls at the superior end of the range of rates reported for minimally monitored or guided Internet-based online self-compassion interventions in nonclinical samples (17% to 55%).

    “The attrition rate in the present study, while elevated (n = 11/26; 42%), falls at the superior end of the range of rates reported for minimally monitored or guided Internet-based online self-compassion interventions in nonclinical samples (17% to 55%; Eriksson et al., 2018; Finlay-Jones et al., 2017; Halamová et al., 2018a; Krieger et al., 2016; Sommers-Spijkerman et al., 2018).”
  • Self-compassion scores continued to increase when assessed three months post-treatment suggesting that participants likely continued to put into practice what they had learned and highlighting the importance of such practice.

    “Self-compassion scores continued to increase when assessed three months post-treatment suggesting that participants likely continued to put into practice what they had learned and highlighting the importance of such practice (Finlay-Jones et al., 2017; Krieger et al., 2016).”
  • Online mindfulness-based interventions commonly have lower adherence rates, between 39.5% and 92%, and small effect sizes on mental health.

    “Commonly, online MBIs have suffered lower intervention adherence rates, with rates varying between 39.5% and 92%, and small effect sizes on mental health (e.g., Centeno, 2020; Danilewitz et al., 2018; Finlay-Jones et al., 2017; Forbes et al., 2018; Spijkerman et al., 2016).”
  • The feasibility and adherence results of this study are slightly higher than those usually found in similar mindfulness intervention studies with university students.

    “When compared to similar studies of mindfulness interventions delivered to university students, the results of this study regarding feasibility and adherence are slightly higher than those usually found (e.g., Centeno, 2020; Danilewitz et al., 2018; Finlay-Jones et al., 2017; Forbes et al., 2018).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Finlay‐Jones, A., Kane, R., & Rees, C.
Affiliations
Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Finlay‐Jones, Amy
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-10-27
Volume
73
Issue
7
Pages
797-816
ISSN
  • 0021-9762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4679
OpenAlex
W2542835748
Cited by
139
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
self-compassion, online intervention, trainee psychologists, psychological distress, happiness, depression, anxiety, stress, emotion regulation, self-guided training, feasibility
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Empathy, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Pilot Projects, Psychology, Self Concept, Stress, Psychological, Students, Health Occupations, Internet, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review