Mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral strategies for psychological detachment: Comparing effectiveness and mechanisms of change.

IF 5.9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Dorota Reis, Alexander Hart, Kai Krautter, Elisabeth Prestele, Dirk Lehr, Malte Friese
{"title":"Mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral strategies for psychological detachment: Comparing effectiveness and mechanisms of change.","authors":"Dorota Reis, Alexander Hart, Kai Krautter, Elisabeth Prestele, Dirk Lehr, Malte Friese","doi":"10.1037/ocp0000381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recovering from work is essential for maintaining occupational well-being, health, motivation, and performance, but recovery is often difficult to achieve. In this study, we evaluated and compared the effectiveness of two (parallel) interventions aimed at promoting recovery: one based on mindfulness and one involving applying cognitive-behavioral strategies. Both interventions were embedded in a measurement burst design, which allowed us to examine the mechanisms underlying change or intervention success. To explore mechanisms of change, we used the stressor-detachment model as a theoretical framework. We operationalized the interventions' effects in three ways: as changes from pretest to posttest, as changes in daily states, and as changes in daily associations. To this end, we used intensive longitudinal data to examine the roles that daily negative activation plays in detachment and strain. In a randomized controlled trial (N = 393), we administered three assessments of traits: pretest, posttest (8 weeks later), and follow-up (3 months after the posttest). We also administered 2 work weeks of experience sampling questionnaires (preintervention and postintervention). Latent change models and Bayes factor equivalence tests revealed that both interventions substantially-and to a similar extent-increased detachment. Bayesian multilevel path models showed improvements in all state variables, including improvements in negative activation, and provided some evidence that mindfulness-based and cognitive-behavioral approaches might tackle different processes at the daily level. We discuss theoretical implications for the literature on recovery from work and specifically for the stressor-detachment model. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48339,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Health Psychology","volume":"29 4","pages":"258-279"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000381","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recovering from work is essential for maintaining occupational well-being, health, motivation, and performance, but recovery is often difficult to achieve. In this study, we evaluated and compared the effectiveness of two (parallel) interventions aimed at promoting recovery: one based on mindfulness and one involving applying cognitive-behavioral strategies. Both interventions were embedded in a measurement burst design, which allowed us to examine the mechanisms underlying change or intervention success. To explore mechanisms of change, we used the stressor-detachment model as a theoretical framework. We operationalized the interventions' effects in three ways: as changes from pretest to posttest, as changes in daily states, and as changes in daily associations. To this end, we used intensive longitudinal data to examine the roles that daily negative activation plays in detachment and strain. In a randomized controlled trial (N = 393), we administered three assessments of traits: pretest, posttest (8 weeks later), and follow-up (3 months after the posttest). We also administered 2 work weeks of experience sampling questionnaires (preintervention and postintervention). Latent change models and Bayes factor equivalence tests revealed that both interventions substantially-and to a similar extent-increased detachment. Bayesian multilevel path models showed improvements in all state variables, including improvements in negative activation, and provided some evidence that mindfulness-based and cognitive-behavioral approaches might tackle different processes at the daily level. We discuss theoretical implications for the literature on recovery from work and specifically for the stressor-detachment model. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

心理疏离的正念和认知行为策略:比较效果和改变机制。
从工作中恢复过来对于保持职业幸福感、健康、积极性和工作表现至关重要,但恢复往往难以实现。在这项研究中,我们评估并比较了旨在促进恢复的两种(平行)干预措施的效果:一种基于正念,另一种涉及认知行为策略的应用。这两种干预措施都采用了测量突变设计,这使我们能够研究变化或干预成功的内在机制。为了探索改变的机制,我们使用了压力源-疏离模型作为理论框架。我们从三个方面对干预效果进行了操作:从测试前到测试后的变化、日常状态的变化以及日常关联的变化。为此,我们使用了密集的纵向数据来研究日常负激活在疏离和紧张中的作用。在一项随机对照试验(N = 393)中,我们进行了三次特质评估:前测、后测(8 周后)和随访(后测后 3 个月)。我们还进行了 2 个工作周的经验抽样问卷调查(干预前和干预后)。潜在变化模型和贝叶斯因子等效性测试表明,两种干预措施都在很大程度上提高了脱离感,而且程度相似。贝叶斯多层次路径模型显示了所有状态变量的改善,包括消极激活的改善,并提供了一些证据表明,正念方法和认知行为方法可能会在日常层面上解决不同的过程。我们讨论了从工作中恢复的文献,特别是压力源-疏离模型的理论意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Journal of Occupational Health Psychology offers research, theory, and public policy articles in occupational health psychology, an interdisciplinary field representing a broad range of backgrounds, interests, and specializations. Occupational health psychology concerns the application of psychology to improving the quality of work life and to protecting and promoting the safety, health, and well-being of workers. This journal focuses on the work environment, the individual, and the work-family interface.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信