@文章{info:doi/10.2196/26569，作者="Muuraiskangas, Salla Tuulikki and Honka, Anita Marianne and Junno, Ulla-Maija and Nieminen, Hannu Olavi and Kaartinen, Jouni Kalevi"，标题="工作压力管理的技术辅助电话干预:先导随机对照试验"，期刊="J Med Internet Res"，年="2022"，月="7"，日="13"，卷="24"，号="7"，页数="e26569"，关键词="健康行为改变干预;电话指导;技术辅助指导;远程指导;职业卫生;心理健康;压力管理;可行性;背景:将技术与人的参与相结合的压力管理干预措施有可能提高单独由人实施的干预措施的成本效益，但很少有随机对照试验用于评估技术辅助的人工干预措施的成本效益。目的:本研究的目的是探讨与传统电话指导相比，在保持参与者的依从性和满意度的情况下，压力管理的技术辅助电话干预是否能够增加心理健康或减少教练的使用时间(作为干预成本的近似值)。 Methods: A 2-arm, pilot randomized controlled trial of 9 months for stress management (4-month intensive and 5-month maintenance phases) was conducted. Participants were recruited on the web through a regional occupational health care provider and randomized equally to a research (technology-assisted telephone intervention) and a control (traditional telephone intervention) group. The coaching methodology was based on habit formation, motivational interviewing, and the transtheoretical model. For the research group, technology supported both coaches and participants in identifying behavior change targets, setting the initial coaching plan, monitoring progress, and communication. The pilot outcome was intervention feasibility, measured primarily by self-assessed mental well-being (WorkOptimum index) and self-reported time use of coaches and secondarily by participants' adherence and satisfaction. Results: A total of 49 eligible participants were randomized to the research (n=24) and control (n=25) groups. Most participants were middle-aged (mean 46.26, SD 9.74 years) and female (47/49, 96{\%}). Mental well-being improved significantly in both groups (WorkOptimum from ``at risk'' to ``good'' {\^A}>0.85; P<.001), and no between-group differences were observed in the end ({\^A}=0.56, 95{\%} CI 0.37-0.74; P=.56). The total time use of coaches did not differ significantly between the groups (366.0 vs 343.0 minutes, {\^A}=0.60, 95{\%} CI 0.33-0.85; P=.48). Regarding adherence, the dropout rate was 13{\%} (3/24) and 24{\%} (6/25), and the mean adherence rate to coaching calls was 92{\%} and 86{\%} for the research and control groups, respectively; the frequency of performing coaching tasks was similar for both groups after both phases; and the diligence in performing the tasks during the intensive phase was better for the research group (5.0 vs 4.0, {\^A}=0.58, 95{\%} CI 0.51-0.65; P=.03), but no difference was observed during the maintenance phase. Satisfaction was higher in the research group during the intensive phase (5.0 vs 4.0, {\^A}=0.66, 95{\%} CI 0.58-0.73; P<.001) but not during the maintenance phase. Conclusions: The technology-assisted telephone intervention is feasible with some modifications, as it had similar preliminary effectiveness as the traditional telephone intervention, and the participants had better satisfaction with and similar or better adherence to the intervention, but it did not reduce the time use of coaches. The technology should be improved to provide more digested information for action planning and templates for messaging. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02445950; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02445950 ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/26569", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2022/7/e26569", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/26569", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35830233" }