Search

Introduction: Burnout poses a substantial, ongoing threat to healthcare worker (HCW) wellbeing and to the delivery of safe, quality healthcare. While systemic and organization-level changes in healthcare are critically important, HCWs also need individual-level skills to promote resilience. The objective of this trial is to test feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of PARK, an online self-guided positive affect regulation intervention, in a sample of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design and Methods: In the context of the unprecedented rise in burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a randomized waitlist-controlled trial of the Positive Affect Regulation sKills (PARK) program-a five-week, online, self-guided coping skills intervention nested within an ongoing cohort of HCWs. N = 554 healthcare workers were randomly assigned to receive the intervention immediately or to receive the intervention after approximately 12 weeks. Outcomes included change in burnout, emotional wellbeing (positive affect, meaning and purpose, depression, anxiety) and sleep over approximately 12 weeks. Analyses included mixed-effects linear regression models comparing change over time in outcomes between intervention and control conditions., Results: One third (n = 554) of the participants in the cohort of HCWs consented to participate and enrolled in PARK in April 2022. Compared to those who did not enroll, participants in the trial reported higher burnout, poorer emotional wellbeing, and poorer sleep at baseline (April, 2022; all ps < .05). Intent-to-treat analyses showed that participants randomly assigned to the intervention immediately (PARK-Now) improved significantly on anxiety (within-group change on PROMIS T-score = -0.63; p = .003) whereas those in the waitlist (PARK-Later) did not (within group T-score change 0.04, p = 0.90). The between-group difference in change, however, was not statistically significant (B = -0.67 p = 0.10). None of the other wellbeing outcomes changed significantly in the intervention group compared to the waitlist. Additional as-treated analyses indicated that those participants who completed all 5 of the weekly online lessons (N = 52; 9.4%) improved significantly more on the primary outcome of positive affect compared to those who enrolled in PARK but completed zero lessons (n = 237; 42.8%; B = 2.85; p = .0001)., Conclusions: Online self-guided coping skills interventions like PARK can be effective in targeted samples and future work will focus on adaptations to increase engagement and tailor PARK for HCWs who could most benefit., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Moskowitz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Prediction during language processing has been hypothesized to lead to processing benefits. These possible benefits have led to several prominent theories that center around prediction as an essential mechanism in language processing. Such theories typically assume predicting is better than not predicting at all, but do not always account for the potential processing costs from failed predictions. Predicting wrongly can be costly, but the cost may depend on how wrong the prediction was. Across three experiments, we manipulate cloze probability, semantic relatedness, and language modality (production vs. comprehension) to determine whether predicting almost correctly is better than predicting completely incorrectly, and if so, if predicting almost correctly is better than not predicting at all. Results showed that when a predicted ending is replaced with a related term, it is processed faster than when it is replaced with an unrelated term, but that related term is not named more quickly than when it appears after a low constraint sentence. This pattern held regardless of whether participants were asked to produce the sentence-final term by naming a picture (Experiments 1 and 2), or if they were asked to perform a semantic classification of the sentence-final word (Experiment 3). Thus, predicting almost correctly is better than predicting completely incorrectly, but it's not better than not predicting at all. This carries implications for current accounts that argue for processing benefits of prediction during language processing, and suggests that prediction may be used to fine-tune the language system rather than to speed language processing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Proper names are especially prone to retrieval failures and tip-of-the-tongue states (TOTs)-a phenomenon wherein a person has a strong feeling of knowing a word but cannot retrieve it. Current research provides mixed evidence regarding whether related names facilitate or compete with target-name retrieval. We examined this question in two experiments using a novel paradigm where participants either read a prime name aloud (Experiment 1) or classified a written prime name as famous or non-famous (Experiment 2) prior to naming a celebrity picture. Successful retrievals decreased with increasing trial number (and was dependent on the number of previously presented similar famous people) in both experiments, revealing a form of accumulating interference between multiple famous names. However, trial number had no effect on TOTs, and within each trial famous prime names increased TOTs only in Experiment 2. These results can be explained within a framework that assumes competition for selection at the point of lexical retrieval, such that successful retrievals decrease after successive retrievals of proper names of depicted faces of semantically similar people. By contrast, the effects of written prime words only occur when prime names are sufficiently processed, and do not provide evidence for competition but may reflect improved retrieval relative to a "don't know" response., (© 2023. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.)