Train to sustain: a randomised controlled trial evaluation of a vitality training employing behaviour-change techniques

Bernice R C Plant; Mattheis L Van Leeuwen; Pascale Peters; Beatrice I J M Van der Heijden

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1320826

Train to sustain: a randomised controlled trial evaluation of a vitality training employing behaviour-change techniques

Front Psychol. 2024 Jan 16:14:1320826. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1320826. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Bernice R C Plant^{1

2}, Mattheis L Van Leeuwen², Pascale Peters^{3

4}, Beatrice I J M Van der Heijden^{5

6

7

8

9}

Affiliations

¹ BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
² Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
³ Nyenrode Business Universiteit, Breukelen, Netherlands.
⁴ Department of Organisation, Leadership and Management, Inland School of Business and Social Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway.
⁵ Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
⁶ Faculty of Management, Open Universiteit, Heerlen, Netherlands.
⁷ Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
⁸ Business School, Hubei University, Wuhan, China.
⁹ Kingston Business School, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom.

Abstract

Introduction: This paper reports on the effects of a 9-week vitality training that employed behaviour-change techniques and was evaluated using a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in three large companies based in the Netherlands.

Methods: A total of 84 adult employees from three participating organisations in the Netherlands were enrolled in the study. A parallel group RCT design was employed and participants were assigned using individual random assignment to either an intervention (n = 38) or a waitlist control group (n = 46). The intervention consisted of a 9-week vitality training employing the behaviour-change techniques of self-persuasion, implementation intentions, and self-efficacy, which was delivered in-house over five fortnightly 2-hour sessions. Primary outcomes (i.e., reported energy and stress) and secondary outcomes (i.e., reported daily life satisfaction and work capacity) were assessed prior to, immediately after, and 3 months following the intervention.

Results: A mixed MANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect between treatment group and time period for the combination of reported energy, stress, daily life satisfaction, and work capacity. Subsequent univariate ANOVAs revealed significant interactions between treatment group and time period for reported energy, stress, and daily life satisfaction; however, not for reported work capacity. Improvements in outcomes were observed for both groups following their completion of the vitality training; however, not all improvements reached statistical significance. Reported self-efficacy regarding managing work-life balance was found to mediate the relationship between the effects of the intervention and reported energy; however, such an effect was not found for stress.

Discussion: An intervention drawing upon evidence-based behaviour-change techniques shows promise for improving indicators associated with burnout; although, it is recommended that in future research a larger-scale evaluation be conducted over a longer time period with an active control group to establish effectiveness.Clinical trial registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au/, ACTRN12622001268730.

Keywords: behaviour change; burnout; randomised controlled trial; self-efficacy; vitality; work-related stress.

Grants and funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding to publish open access was provided by Nyenrode Business Universiteit, the Netherlands, and Monash University, Australia.