Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31447745›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019

The Efficacy of Psychological Capital Intervention (PCI) for Depression From the Perspective of Positive Psychology: A Pilot Study.

Ruijun Song, Nana Sun, Xuhong Song

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The efficacy and mechanism of positive psychological intervention on well-being for colostomy patients: a randomized controlled trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ruijun SongSchool of Politics and Law, Shaoyang University, Shaoyang, China.
Nana SunDepartment of Education, Luliang University, Luliang, China.
Xuhong SongDepartment of Medical Psychology, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extensive psychological interventions primarily target the negative symptoms of depression and the deficits in positive resources have been systematically neglected. So far, little attention has been devoted to psychological capital (PsyCap) intervention from the perspective of developing positive resources. The aim of the present pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy of psychological capital intervention (PCI) for depression in a randomized controlled trial. A total of 56 patients were randomized to either care as usual (CAU) for normal medication or psychological capital intervention (PCI) group, where the normal medication was supplemented with the PCI. Participants were assessed at pre- and post-treatment, as well as 6-month follow-up, on measures of depressive symptoms and PsyCap. The PCI group displayed significantly larger improvements in PsyCap and larger reductions in depression symptoms from pre- to post treatment compared to control group. Improvements were sustained over the 6-month follow-up period. Targeting the positive resources intervention in the PCI may be effective against the treatment of depression.

Indexed as

depressioninterventionpilot studypositive psychologypsychological capital

Identifiers

PMID31447745
PMCPMC6692487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.