No abstract

The job–demand–control–support model indicates that clergy are at high risk for chronic stress and adverse health outcomes. A multi-group pre-test–post-test design was used to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and range of outcome effect sizes for four potentially stress-reducing interventions: stress inoculation training, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), the Daily Examen, and Centering Prayer. All United Methodist clergy in North Carolina were eligible and recruited via email to attend their preferred intervention. Surveys at 0, 3, and 12 weeks assessed symptoms of stress, anxiety, and perceived stress reactivity. Heart rate variability (HRV) was assessed at baseline and 12 weeks using 24 h ambulatory heart rate monitoring data. A subset of participants completed in-depth interviews and reported skill practice using daily text messages. Standardized mean differences with 95% and 75% confidence intervals were calculated for the change observed in each intervention from baseline to 3 and 12 weeks post-baseline to determine the range of effect sizes likely to be observed in a definitive trial. 71 clergy participated in an intervention. The daily percentage of participants engaging in stress management practices ranged from 47% (MBSR) to 69% (Examen). Results suggest that participation in Daily Examen, stress inoculation, or MBSR interventions could plausibly result in improvement in stress and anxiety at 12 weeks with small-to-large effect sizes. Small effect sizes on change in HRV were plausible for MBSR and Centering Prayer from baseline to 12 weeks. All four interventions were feasible and acceptable, although Centering Prayer had lower enrollment and mixed results.

COVID-19 led to widespread disruption of services that promote family well-being. Families impacted most were those already experiencing disparities due to structural and systemic barriers. Existing support systems faded into the background as families became more isolated. New approaches were needed to deliver evidence-based, low-cost interventions to reach families within communities. We adapted a family strengthening intervention developed in Kenya (“Tuko Pamoja”) for the United States. We tested a three-phase participatory adaptation process. In phase 1, we conducted community focus groups including 11 organizations to identify needs and a community partner. In phase 2, the academic-community partner team collaboratively adapted the intervention. We held a development workshop and trained community health workers to deliver the program using an accelerated process combining training, feedback, and iterative revisions. In phase 3, we piloted Coping Together with 18 families, collecting feedback through session-specific surveys and participant focus groups. Community focus groups confirmed that concepts from Tuko Pamoja were relevant, and adaptation resulted in a contextualized intervention—“Coping Together”—an 8-session virtual program for multiple families. As in Tuko Pamoja, communication skills are central and applied for developing family values, visions, and goals. Problem-solving and coping skills then equip families to reach goals, while positive emotion-focused activities promote openness to change. Sessions are interactive, emphasizing skills practice. Participants reported high acceptability and appropriateness, and focus groups suggested that most content was understood and applied in ways consistent with the theory of change. The accelerated reciprocal adaptation process and intervention could apply across resource-constrained settings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11121-022-01418-9.