↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Internet-Based Self-Efficacy Intervention on Secondary Traumatic Stress and Secondary Posttraumatic Growth among Health and Human Services Professionals Exposed to Indirect Trauma

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Effects of Internet-Based Self-Efficacy Intervention on Secondary Traumatic Stress and Secondary Posttraumatic Growth among Health and Human Services Professionals Exposed to Indirect Trauma
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roman Cieslak, Charles C. Benight, Anna Rogala, Ewelina Smoktunowicz, Martyna Kowalska, Katarzyna Zukowska, Carolyn Yeager, Aleksandra Luszczynska

Abstract

Although the evidence for the associations among self-efficacy, secondary traumatic stress (STS) and secondary posttraumatic growth (SPTG) is mounting, there is a lack of the experimental evidence for the influence of self-efficacy on positive and negative mental health outcomes among professionals indirectly exposed to trauma. This study investigated the effects of an internet-based self-efficacy intervention (the experimental condition), compared to an education (the active control condition) on STS and SPTG among workers exposed to traumatic events indirectly, through their clients. We hypothesized that the group assignment (experimental vs. control) would affect STS and SPTG indirectly, with a mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs. Participants were 168 health and human services professionals (78% women), exposed indirectly to a traumatic event at work. They were randomly assigned to either a 4-session internet-based self-efficacy intervention (n = 87) or an education control group (n = 81) which received information about coping resources and consequences of stressors at work or at home. STS, SPTG, and self-efficacy were measured at the baseline (Time 1), 1-month follow-up (Time 2) and 2-month follow-up (Time 3). Analysis of covariance showed that the group assignment had a significant effect on STS (Time 2) and self-efficacy (Time 2), with lower STS and higher self-efficacy reported by the self-efficacy intervention participants. Compared to the experimental group, the active control (education) group participants reported higher SPTG at Time 2. Mediation analyses indicated that the group assignment had indirect effects on STS and SPTG at Time 3. Workers who experienced increases in self-efficacy (Time 2) through the intervention were more likely to report lower STS and higher SPTG at Time 3. Elucidating the mediating processes that explain why an intervention for secondary trauma works is essential in order to develop more effective support systems that promote improved mental health outcomes among health and human services professionals. Prevention programs for workers exposed indirectly to traumatic events may target self-efficacy enhancement and education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 11%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 29 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 12%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 35 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,380,359
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,778
of 29,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,254
of 354,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#282
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 354,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.