Cited by 30Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsResilience and Mental Health

Resilience and Well-Being in the Caribbean: Findings from a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Culturally Adapted Multi-Component Positive Psychology Intervention

Open access
Hendriks, Tom, Schotanus-Dijkstra, Marijke, Hassankhan, Aabidien, Sardjo, Wantley, Graafsma, Tobi, Bohlmeijer, Ernst, de Jong, Joop·2020·The Journal of Positive Psychology

Abstract

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of a culturally adapted multi-component positive psychology intervention (MPPI) on resilience. We conducted a randomized controlled trial among 158 employees of multi-ethnic origin in Paramaribo, Suriname. The participants were assigned to a 6-session intervention program or a wait-list control group. Data were collected at baseline, post-intervention, and at 3-months follow-up. Strict guidelines were followed to minimize risk of bias and to assure a high methodological quality. Analysis of covariance revealed large significant improvements on resilience, mental well-being, and negative affect, moderate improvements on depression and positive affect, and small improvements on anxiety compared to control. The intervention was not more beneficial on stress, financial distress, and psychological flexibility than control. In conclusion, a culturally adapted MPPI may be a promising intervention to increase resilience and well-being among healthy adults with a multi-ethnic background in the Caribbean.

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 · 10.1080/17439760.2019.1590624

Cites

120 of 120 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?

  • Participants entered the study at baseline with fairly high level of psychological flexibility, and this might create a floor effect, which reduces the chances of improvement.

    “Participants entered the study at T1 phase (baseline) with fairly high level of psychological flexibility [61,62], and this might create a “floor effect”, which reduces the chances of improvement.”

    From Inquiry based stress reduction (Ibsr) improves overall stuttering experience among adults who stutter: A randomized controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

    The paper’s psychological-flexibility table (p. 19) reports baseline means of 3.92 and 4.03 on a six-point scale, and the Results (p. 20) find no significant improvement. These findings concern the paper’s own participants; the copy does not say that high baseline flexibility caused a floor effect or reduced the chance of improvement. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 122 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ammenwerth, E., & Rigby, M. (2016). Evidence-based health informatics: Promoting safety and efficiency through scientific methods and ethical policy (Vol. 222). Amsterdam: Ios Press.
  2. Bandler, R., Grinder, J., & Andreas, S. (1982). Refraining. Neuro-Linguistic Programming™ and the Transformation of Meaning . Moab, Utah: Real People Press.
  3. Best, L. (1967). Independent thought and Caribbean freedom. New World Quarterly, 3 (4), 726.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hendriks, T., Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Hassankhan, A., Sardjo, W., Graafsma, T., Bohlmeijer, E., & de Jong, J.
Affiliations
  • Anton de Kom University of Suriname (SR)
  • University of Twente (NL)
  • Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Hendriks, Tom
Venue
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Published
2019-03-18
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
238-253
ISSN
  • 1743-9760 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9779
OpenAlex
W2921601342
Cited by
30
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • The Journal of Positive Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
University of Amsterdam
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
Keywords
resilience, well-being, positive psychology interventions, culturally tailored interventions, multicomponent intervention, workers, multi-ethnic population, Caribbean, Suriname, Paramaribo, depression, anxiety, negative affect, positive affect, stress, financial distress, psychological flexibility

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