Cited by 7Digital Mental Health InterventionsMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsWorkplace Health and Well-being

Development and formative evaluation of a Web-based stress management program to promote psychological well-being

Open access
KAWAI, Kaoru, YAMAZAKI, Yoshihiko, NAKAYAMA, Kazuhiro·2007·Japanese Journal of Health and Human Ecology

Abstract

Objective : The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate the feasibility of a web-based stress management program to promote psychological well-being. Methods : This study was based on a single group (N=28 (male :15, female : 13), age =35.8±9.9, white-collar workers), pre-, post-test design. The evaluation measures include participants'perceived evaluation of the program, such as its comprehensiveness, informativeness, interestingness, as well as degeree of intention to act and self-efficacy belief. Participants'psychological well-being and mental health were measured pre (T1) -and post (T2) -intervention. All measures were conducted on the web. Results : Participant evaluation of the program was positive, and these results appear to confirm the feasibility of using web-based stress management programs. High 'intention to act' and 'self-efficacy belief' were reported, and these measures positively correlated with post-intervention psychological well-being after the intervention (P<.01). Program primary outcome, psychological wellbeing increased positively (T1=189.5±32.6, T2=195.6±31.6, P<.01), and among secondary outcomes, only STAT-state was improved (T1=41.8±10.4, T2=38.1±12.3, P<.05), but no significant difference was found for CRS-D, psychosomatic symptoms, and job satisfaction. Conclusion : Web-based stress management program for the enhancement of personal psychological well-being are feasible, and participants'perceived 'intention to act' and 'self-efficacy beliefs' were important exposures that influenced outcome. Further evaluation of the effectiveness of web based stress management programs requires controlled trials using larger samples with more varied demographics and investigation of program efficacy in longer-term follow-up.

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 · 10.3861/jshhe.73.137

Cites

39 of 39 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-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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KAWAI, K., YAMAZAKI, Y., & NAKAYAMA, K.
Affiliations
The University of Tokyo (JP)
Venue
Japanese Journal of Health and Human Ecology
Published
2007
Volume
73
Issue
4
Pages
137-152
ISSN
  • 0368-9395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1882-868X
OpenAlex
W1976538295
Cited by
7
References
38
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2017: 5
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Japanese Journal of Health and Human Ecology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
psychological well-being, mental health, white-collar workers, program feasibility, intention to act, self-efficacy, psychosomatic symptoms, job satisfaction

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