确定福祉重要决定因素的个性化方法

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Cognitive Therapy and Research Pub Date : 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1007/s10608-024-10486-w
Joseph Ciarrochi, Baljinder Sahdra, Steven C. Hayes, Stefan G. Hofmann, Brandon Sanford, Cory Stanton, Keong Yap, Madeleine I. Fraser, Kathleen Gates, Andrew T. Gloster
{"title":"确定福祉重要决定因素的个性化方法","authors":"Joseph Ciarrochi, Baljinder Sahdra, Steven C. Hayes, Stefan G. Hofmann, Brandon Sanford, Cory Stanton, Keong Yap, Madeleine I. Fraser, Kathleen Gates, Andrew T. Gloster","doi":"10.1007/s10608-024-10486-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>To develop effective and personalized interventions, it is essential to identify the most critical processes or psychological drivers that impact an individual’s well-being. Some processes may be universally beneficial to well-being across many contexts and people, while others may only be beneficial to certain individuals in specific contexts.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Method</h3><p>We conducted three intensive daily diary studies, each with more than 50 within-person measurement occasions, across three data sets (n1 = 44; n2 = 37; n3 = 141). We aimed to investigate individual differences in the strength of within-person associations between three distinct process measures and a variety of outcomes. We utilized a unique idiographic algorithm, known as i-ARIMAX (Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average), to determine the strength of the relationship (Beta) between each process and outcome within individuals (“i”). All of the computed betas were then subjected to meta-analyses, with individuals treated as the “study”.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The results revealed that the process-outcome links varied significantly between individuals, surpassing the homogeneity typically seen in meta-analyses of studies. Although several processes showed group-level effects, no process was found to be universally beneficial when considered individually. For instance, processes involving social behavior, like being assertive, did not demonstrate any group-level links to loneliness but still had significant individual-level effects that varied from positive to negative.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Discussion</h3><p>Using i-ARIMAX might help reduce the number of candidate variables for complex within-person analyses. Additionally, the size and pattern of i-ARIMAX betas could prove useful in guiding personalized interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48316,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Therapy and Research","volume":"98 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Personalised Approach to Identifying Important Determinants of Well-being\",\"authors\":\"Joseph Ciarrochi, Baljinder Sahdra, Steven C. Hayes, Stefan G. Hofmann, Brandon Sanford, Cory Stanton, Keong Yap, Madeleine I. Fraser, Kathleen Gates, Andrew T. Gloster\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10608-024-10486-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Purpose</h3><p>To develop effective and personalized interventions, it is essential to identify the most critical processes or psychological drivers that impact an individual’s well-being. Some processes may be universally beneficial to well-being across many contexts and people, while others may only be beneficial to certain individuals in specific contexts.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Method</h3><p>We conducted three intensive daily diary studies, each with more than 50 within-person measurement occasions, across three data sets (n1 = 44; n2 = 37; n3 = 141). We aimed to investigate individual differences in the strength of within-person associations between three distinct process measures and a variety of outcomes. We utilized a unique idiographic algorithm, known as i-ARIMAX (Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average), to determine the strength of the relationship (Beta) between each process and outcome within individuals (“i”). All of the computed betas were then subjected to meta-analyses, with individuals treated as the “study”.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>The results revealed that the process-outcome links varied significantly between individuals, surpassing the homogeneity typically seen in meta-analyses of studies. Although several processes showed group-level effects, no process was found to be universally beneficial when considered individually. For instance, processes involving social behavior, like being assertive, did not demonstrate any group-level links to loneliness but still had significant individual-level effects that varied from positive to negative.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Discussion</h3><p>Using i-ARIMAX might help reduce the number of candidate variables for complex within-person analyses. Additionally, the size and pattern of i-ARIMAX betas could prove useful in guiding personalized interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48316,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Therapy and Research\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Therapy and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-024-10486-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Therapy and Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-024-10486-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的为了制定有效的个性化干预措施,必须确定影响个人幸福感的最关键过程或心理驱动因素。有些过程可能在许多环境和人群中对幸福感普遍有益,而有些过程可能只在特定环境中对某些人有益。方法我们进行了三项密集的每日日记研究,每项研究都有超过 50 个人际测量场合,涉及三个数据集(n1 = 44;n2 = 37;n3 = 141)。我们旨在研究三种不同的过程测量与各种结果之间的人际关联强度的个体差异。我们利用一种独特的自回归整合移动平均算法(i-ARIMAX)来确定个体("i")内每个过程与结果之间的关系强度(Beta)。结果结果表明,过程与结果之间的联系在个体之间存在显著差异,超过了通常在元分析研究中看到的同质性。尽管有几个过程显示出了群体层面的效应,但没有发现任何一个过程在单独考虑时是普遍有益的。例如,涉及社会行为的过程,如自信,并没有显示出与孤独有任何群体层面的联系,但仍有显著的个体层面的影响,这些影响从积极到消极不等。讨论使用i-ARIMAX可能有助于减少复杂的人内分析的候选变量数量。此外,i-ARIMAX betas 的大小和模式可能有助于指导个性化干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Personalised Approach to Identifying Important Determinants of Well-being

Purpose

To develop effective and personalized interventions, it is essential to identify the most critical processes or psychological drivers that impact an individual’s well-being. Some processes may be universally beneficial to well-being across many contexts and people, while others may only be beneficial to certain individuals in specific contexts.

Method

We conducted three intensive daily diary studies, each with more than 50 within-person measurement occasions, across three data sets (n1 = 44; n2 = 37; n3 = 141). We aimed to investigate individual differences in the strength of within-person associations between three distinct process measures and a variety of outcomes. We utilized a unique idiographic algorithm, known as i-ARIMAX (Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average), to determine the strength of the relationship (Beta) between each process and outcome within individuals (“i”). All of the computed betas were then subjected to meta-analyses, with individuals treated as the “study”.

Results

The results revealed that the process-outcome links varied significantly between individuals, surpassing the homogeneity typically seen in meta-analyses of studies. Although several processes showed group-level effects, no process was found to be universally beneficial when considered individually. For instance, processes involving social behavior, like being assertive, did not demonstrate any group-level links to loneliness but still had significant individual-level effects that varied from positive to negative.

Discussion

Using i-ARIMAX might help reduce the number of candidate variables for complex within-person analyses. Additionally, the size and pattern of i-ARIMAX betas could prove useful in guiding personalized interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Cognitive Therapy and Research PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Cognitive Therapy and Research (COTR) focuses on the investigation of cognitive processes in human adaptation and adjustment and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). It is an interdisciplinary journal welcoming submissions from diverse areas of psychology, including cognitive, clinical, developmental, experimental, personality, social, learning, affective neuroscience, emotion research, therapy mechanism, and pharmacotherapy.
期刊最新文献
Examining Relationships between Psychological Flexibility and Comorbidity of Depression and Anxiety: A Network Analysis in a Non-Clinical Community Sample Lay Theories for Social Anxiety: Examining the Impact of Viewing Social Anxiety as Malleable Due to Personal Effort versus Fixed in Nature in a Non-clinical Sample Training to Increase Processing of Positive Content Paradoxically Decreases Positive Memory Bias in High Levels of Depression Associations Between Self-Criticism, Basic Psychological Needs Frustration, and Self-Damaging Behaviors: An Application of Self-Determination Theory Relapse prevention following guided self-help for common health problems: A Scoping Review
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1