Trial reportPloS one2019
Qualitative analysis of the Best Possible Self intervention: Underlying mechanisms that influence its efficacy.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of "Three Good Things" Intervention on Dyadic Coping Among Young and Middle-Aged Stroke Survivors and Their Spousal Caregivers.Nursing research and practice · 2026Article
- Preoperative optimization of cardiac valve patients' expectations: Study protocol of the randomized controlled ValvEx-trial.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- The best possible self-intervention as a viable public health tool for the prevention of type 2 diabetes: A reflexive thematic analysis of public experience and engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Examining Optimism, Psychosocial Risks, and Cardiovascular Health Using Life's Simple 7 Metrics in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and the Jackson Heart Study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Identity disruption and its association with mental health among veterans with reintegration difficulty.Developmental psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Best Possible Self is a Positive Psychology Intervention which asks participants to write down about themselves in their best possible future. Previous studies have shown its efficacy to enhance wellbeing, but the mechanisms that underlie its efficacy are still unknown.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze the content of the essays of the BPS intervention and to examine how this content was related to the efficacy of the intervention to increase positive affect.
methodParticipants (N = 78) were randomized to either the Best Possible Self condition, or one of two variants of the intervention: one's best self in the present, and one's best self in the past. Qualitative analyses of the texts were carried out to explore the main themes and features of the essays. Then, a mixed-methods approach with quantitative and qualitative data was followed, in order to analyze the relationship between the content of the texts and the change in positive affect produced by the interventions.
resultsSignificant differences between conditions were found in the content of the compositions. Regression analyses showed that different variables predicted the change in positive affect depending on the condition. Mediation analyses also found differences among conditions.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that these interventions respond to different underlying mechanisms which influence their efficacy. This study contributed to a better understanding of how Positive Psychology Interventions work, and how to increment their efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.