A Mixed-Methods Cluster Randomised Waitlist-Controlled Trial of a Goal-Based Behaviour Change Intervention Implemented in Workplaces
Open accessAbstract
Previous research suggests a goal-based intervention called ‘mental contrasting and implementation intentions’ improves participants’ health and wellbeing. The present study sought to extend these findings to workplaces in the United Kingdom. A mixed-methods cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted with 28 workplaces and 225 staff. All participants deliberated on wishes (potential goals) about improving their health and wellbeing. In the intervention arm, participants were guided to think about the benefits and obstacles to achieving a wish (mental contrasting) and to plan actions to overcome these obstacles (implementation intentions). The results showed no substantive effect of the intervention on average self-reported progress towards what they wished to do for their health and wellbeing four weeks later (mean difference on a 1–7 scale: −0.19; 95% credible interval: −1.08–0.71). Unexpectedly, anxiety increased, and we found evidence that might suggest people identifying as men or of Asian ethnicity made less progress in the intervention group. To explain the results, qualitative focus group data were analysed, guided by normalisation process theory (NPT) and the behaviour change wheel (BCW). Three key themes emerged: insufficient differentiation from other approaches using writing/drawing (NPT), a mismatch between an internal motivational intervention and external barriers (NPT/BCW), and poor timing of opportunities (NPT/BCW). The discussion explores how these results can enhance future workplace health and wellbeing initiatives.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 · Cited by 13,697 · see citing works
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548 · see citing works
Perceived Control and Vulnerability to Anxiety Disorders: A Meta-analytic Review
Gallagher, M. W., Bentley, K. H., & Barlow, D. H. (2014) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-014-9624-x · Cited by 237 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Moreover, it is plausible that the intervention was associated with increased anxiety because participants felt that they were not in control of their outcomes, which is aligned with the prior literature on perceived behavioural control [39].”
Wang, G., Wang, Y., & Gai, X. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.565202 · Cited by 62 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A prominent goal-based intervention demonstrated to be effective across contexts related to health, academic achievement, and pro-social behaviour is ‘mental contrasting plus implementation intentions’ (MCII) [7,8].”
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Kudrna, L., Yates, J., Alidu, L., Hemming, K., Quinn, L., Schmidtke, K. A., Jones, J., Al-Khudairy, L., Jolly, K., Bird, P., Campbell, N., Bharatan, I., Latuszynska, A., Currie, G., & Lilford, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
- University of Health Sciences and Pharmacy (US)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kudrna, Laura
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-03-08
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 398
- ISSN
- 1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11941803
- OpenAlex
- W4408295248
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- NIHR ARC West Midlands (NIHR200165, P30DK020572)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIHR200165, P30DK020572)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- mental contrasting, implementation intentions, employee well-being, anxiety, Normalisation Process Theory, Behaviour Change Wheel, gender differences, Asian ethnicity, barriers to behavior change
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Goals, United Kingdom, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Waiting Lists, Health Behavior, Workplace, Focus Groups, Young Adult
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