ArticleEnvironmental and occupational health practice2025
Effects of an online group program based on acceptance and commitment therapy for young employees on well-being: single-case A-B design.
Article in Environmental and occupational health practice, 2025. 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
Objectives: This study examined the effects of an online group program based on acceptance and commitment therapy for young employees on employee well-being. Methods: Using a single-case A-B design, this study implemented a program that spanned three 90-min sessions among 24 employees of a Japanese company, who were up to 3 years after graduation from university or postgraduate studies. The baseline (times 1-5) phase was conducted across 15 days, followed by the intervention, which was conducted over 16 days. The intervention (times 6-10) phase was conducted over 35 days following session 1. Results: Fourteen participants met the inclusion criteria. A hierarchical Bayesian model indicated that the hypotheses were not supported in terms of the primary outcome of well-being and process outcome of psychological inflexibility of 10 employees because the credible interval included 0 (well-being: expected a posteriori estimation [EAP] 0.22; 95% credible interval, -0.31 to 0.81; Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: EAP -2.20; 95% credible interval, -5.60 to 1.31). Tau-U for well-being varied from -0.56 to 0.84 among the participants. Similarly, for the secondary outcomes of 13 employees, the hypotheses were not supported for work performance, work engagement, and stress reaction (World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire: EAP -0.32; 95% credible interval, -1.22 to 0.57; Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-3: EAP -0.08; 95% credible interval, -0.47 to 0.34; stress reaction: EAP -0.49; 95% credible interval, -3.76 to 2.66). Conclusions: The online group program implemented in this study did not improve employee well-being. Trial registration: The study protocol was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (ID: UMIN000042912).
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.