Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38915428›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Evaluation of two study demands-resources-based interventions: a randomized controlled trial.

Lorena Sarah Körner, Timo Kortsch, Kerstin Rieder, Thomas Rigotti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Lorena Sarah KörnerDepartment of Business Psychology, Aalen University of Applied Sciences, Aalen, Germany.
Timo KortschDepartment of Social Sciences, IU International University of Applied Sciences, Erfurt, Germany.
Kerstin RiederDepartment of Business Psychology, Aalen University of Applied Sciences, Aalen, Germany.
Thomas RigottiDepartment of Work, Organizational, and Business Psychology, Institute for Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Higher education students experience significant levels of exhaustion in their studies, yet there are limited evidence-based support programs available. Therefore, this study evaluated a novel intervention approach by testing the effectiveness of two online interventions based on the study demands-resources framework. These interventions aimed to balance demands and resources. Derived from the theoretical assumptions of the framework, we hypothesized that the interventions would increase study and personal resources, engagement, and study crafting, and decrease study demands, exhaustion, and self-undermining. Additionally, we hypothesized that demands and resources would mediate the effects of the intervention on engagement, exhaustion, study crafting, and self-undermining. Methods: Conducted as a randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group ( Results: Results of the analyses of variance with repeated measures revealed that the interventions had significant positive effects on the personal resource mindfulness, two study crafting strategies, self-undermining, and exhaustion. Notably, intervention group 2 exhibited more positive outcomes. The hypothesized mediation effects through mindfulness were partially supported. Discussion: The study demonstrates the considerable potential of interventions based on the study demands-resources framework for higher education institutions in supporting student well-being.

Indexed as

exhaustionmindfulnessonline interventionrandomized controlled trialself-underminingstudy craftingstudy demands-resources framework

Identifiers

PMID38915428
PMCPMC11194431

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.