↓ Skip to main content

Employee Wellbeing: Evaluating a Wellbeing Intervention in Two Settings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
331 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Employee Wellbeing: Evaluating a Wellbeing Intervention in Two Settings
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00505
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexis Keeman, Katharina Näswall, Sanna Malinen, Joana Kuntz

Abstract

This research presents two studies conducted to evaluate the Wellbeing Game in two different contexts: In a student sample and in an organizational setting. Study 1 investigated the efficacy of the Wellbeing Game, in terms of its effect of wellbeing, stress, and an image valence test, among 60 university students. The results showed that after playing the Wellbeing Game, students reported a significant positive change in wellbeing compared to those who did not play the Wellbeing Game, but there was no decrease in stress or any change in classification of image valence. Study 2 evaluated the Wellbeing Game in an organizational context. Employees (n = 52) in a financial organization played the Wellbeing Game for 4 weeks and answered survey questions about wellbeing and stress at the beginning and end of this period. The results showed that after playing the Wellbeing Game, employees reported lower stress levels, and higher wellbeing levels for those who felt that it had helped them connect more with colleagues. The results from the two studies provide preliminary support that the Wellbeing Game may be an effective wellbeing intervention tool in both an organization and a non-organizational context.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 331 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 331 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 6%
Student > Postgraduate 14 4%
Researcher 13 4%
Other 43 13%
Unknown 149 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 62 19%
Psychology 55 17%
Social Sciences 20 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 27 8%
Unknown 156 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,288,259
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,052
of 30,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,207
of 308,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#244
of 553 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 553 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.