Cited by 81Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDigital Mental Health InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Working on self-compassion online: a proof of concept and feasibility study

Open access
Krieger, Tobias, Martig, Dominik Sander, van den Brink, Erik, Berger, Thomas·2016·Internet Interventions

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Low self-compassion has repeatedly been associated with psychopathology. There are many promising face-to-face group format interventions focusing on self-compassion. We investigated the feasibility of an online self-compassion program. DESIGN: A feasibility and proof-of-concept study of an online adapted Mindfulness-based Compassionate Living (MBCL) program. PARTICIPANTS: Self-referred participants suffering from harsh self-criticism (N = 39) were offered an online program and were asked to complete outcome measures at baseline, after 8 weeks (post-intervention) and after 14 weeks (follow-up). INTERVENTION: The online program consisted of seven sessions, including a first session introducing mindfulness and mindfulness meditation followed by a six-session adaptation of the MBCL program. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were the Forms of Self-criticizing/Attacking and Self-reassuring Scale (FSCRS), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experience (CHIME), the Fear of Self-compassion (FSC), and the Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ). Additionally, we assessed satisfaction with the program and negative effects related to the program. Furthermore, we used several measures of program usage (number of processed modules, number of logins, time spent in the program, number of diary entries, number of entries in completed exercises). RESULTS: s = 0.50-1.50) and comparable to those found within a face-to-face group format in a similar sample. Time spent in the program significantly predicted self-compassion at post. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study are promising. However, they must be seen as preliminary since replication in a randomized controlled trial, with clinical measures/diagnoses and a longer follow-up period, is necessary.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.invent.2016.10.001

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • 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).”

    From Increasing access to pain management: Feasibility of a self-compassion psychoeducational website using a minimally monitored delivery model (2021) · cites this paper as Krieger et al., 2016

    In Results > Maintenance of intervention effects, self-compassion scores fell from 3.17 post-treatment to 2.97 at the six-week follow-up; they did not continue to increase at a three-month assessment. The Discussion says the authors did not assess whether participants continued the exercises, so the proposed explanation is not established by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Higher levels of adherence have been reported for more structured Internet-based programs on self-compassion, ACT or CBT.

    “Higher levels of adherence have been reported for more structured Internet-based programs on self-compassion (Krieger et al., 2016), ACT or CBT (e.g., Dear et al., 2015; Trompetter et al., 2015).”

    From Increasing access to pain management: Feasibility of a self-compassion psychoeducational website using a minimally monitored delivery model (2021) · cites this paper as Krieger et al., 2016

    The Methods (Intervention; page unavailable) describe a structured, seven-session online self-compassion program, and the Discussion reports 78% completion. The paper does not compare adherence with less structured programs, so it supports the reported completion level but not the claim that adherence was higher because the program was more structured. The ACT and CBT citations are separate and are not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a feasibility study of an 8-week online adapted Mindfulness-based Compassionate Living program provided with the guidance of a psychologist on request, data on adherence was reported for study completers only; on average, completers initiated work on 4.9 modules out of 7.

    “In a feasibility study of an 8-week online adapted Mindfulness-based Compassionate Living program provided with the guidance of a psychologist on request, data on adherence was reported for study completers only (Krieger et al., 2016). On average, completers initiated work on 4.9 modules out of 7.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Shahar B. Szsepsenwol O. Zilcha-Mano S. Haim N. Zamir O. Levi-Yeshuvi S. Levit-Binnun N. A wait-list randomized controlled trial of loving-kindness meditation programme for self-criticism Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 2014 24633992

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krieger, T., Martig, D. S., van den Brink, E., & Berger, T.
Affiliations
University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Krieger, Tobias
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
6
Pages
64-70
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2530838685
Cited by
81
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
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, mindfulness meditation, feasibility, proof of concept, fear of self-compassion, perceived stress, life satisfaction, program usage, digital mental health

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