ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
The Effect of Positive Intervention Dosing Frequency: Fixed Intervals May Decrease More Depression than Flexible Ones.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positive interventions (PIs) that are based on the theory of positive psychology have proven to be effective in improving well-being and alleviating depression. However, little research has explored the effect of dosing intervals on experimental effects. As such, this study designed strength-based PIs using cognitive reframing theory and compared flexible and fixed dosing intervals to find out which one could more effectively reduce depression with equal total amounts of dosing. The 8-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (8-item CES-D) and the Positive reframing scale (PRS) were adopted as research instruments. A total of 193 Taiwanese college students were recruited as the research sample and they were randomly assigned to experimental Group A (fixed dosing intervals), experimental Group B (flexible dosing intervals), and the Control Group. The research participants received 17-day interventions with follow-up tests administered in the seventh week of the experiment. Ultimately, 157 participants completed the experiment. According to the ANCOVA results, participants in experimental Group A showed significantly lower degrees of depression than those in the Control Group in both post-test and follow-up stages and displayed greater effect size in the follow-up stage than in the post-test stage. The results indicated that the design of fixed dosing intervals enabled the participants to effectively integrate reflections on reframing learned during PIs into their life. On the contrary, participants in experimental Group B exhibited no significant difference in the degree of depression from those in the Control Group during either the post-test or follow-up stage and manifested poorer effects in the follow-up stage than in the post-test stage. These results demonstrated that fixed dosing intervals achieved better effects than flexible dosing intervals. Participants receiving fixed dosing intervals could more effectively execute cognitive reframing and showed longer-lasting experimental effects, whereas participants using the design of flexible dosing intervals were more prone to forget to implement PIs and attain less positive effects as a result.
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.