CClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07845799Updated Sep 29, 2026

Internet Intervention for Well-Being and Work-Family Conflict in Dual-Earner Couples

An interventional study of Internet-delivered psychological intervention for work-family conflict in Psychological Stress, Work-Family Conflict and Family-Work Conflict, sponsored by University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Poland. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-29.

Sponsored by University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
564
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if an online program treats stress in working couples. The main questions it aims to answer are:

  • Does the 3-week online program lower stress for participants?
  • Does doing the program together work better than doing it alone?
  • Does the program lower conflict between work and home life?
  • Does the program improve job and family satisfaction? Researchers will compare four groups (both partners, only women, only men, and a waitlist) to see if doing the program together works best to lower stress.

Participants will:

  • Fill out online surveys at the start, after 3 weeks, and 6 months later.
  • Use a 3-week online program to manage time and lower stress.
  • Read short texts and track their daily habits.
  • Talk and plan with their partner if placed in the joint group.
Read the detailed description

Background and theoretical rationale: This study evaluates an internet-delivered psychological intervention for heterosexual dual-earner couples experiencing work-to-family conflict (WFC) and family-to-work conflict (FWC). Grounded in Greenhaus and Beutell's multidimensional framework and the Spillover-Crossover Model, the intervention targets time-based and strain-based interrole conflict. The dyadic randomized controlled design investigates individual (actor) effects and interpersonal (partner) crossover effects to test whether joint participation yields superior benefits compared to individual delivery or a waitlist control condition.

Study design and randomization: The study is a four-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with the couple serving as the unit of recruitment and randomization. Couples are allocated using block randomization via the blockrand package in R with a 1.77:1.77:1 allocation ratio to one of four conditions. The conditions include a dyadic intervention, an individual female-partner intervention, an individual male-partner intervention, and a waitlist control condition.

Digital platform and delivery: The unguided 3-week intervention is hosted on Google Classroom within an institutional Google Workspace for Education environment. To ensure participant privacy, a multiple-classroom architecture assigns each individual or dyad to a private virtual classroom accessible only via individual researcher-managed credentials. Native social communication features are disabled to prevent cross-participant visibility. Built-in automated email notifications serve as digital nudges to promote task engagement.

Intervention structure: The intervention consists of two parallel strands addressing time-based and strain-based conflict. The time-based strand focuses on boundary management, segmentation and integration strategies, implementation intentions, and action planning. The strain-based strand emphasizes recognizing psychological strain transfer, self-distancing, emotional awareness, and behavioral experiments. The dyadic condition incorporates joint activities involving mutual reflection, structured dialogue, and collaborative support planning.

Statistical analysis plan: Efficacy analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models to evaluate fixed effects of time, condition, and their interaction. Nested random intercepts will account for repeated observations within participants and non-independence within couples. Dyadic crossover processes will be analyzed using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model to differentiate actor associations from partner associations. Missing data will be handled via maximum likelihood estimation within mixed-effects models or multiple imputation depending on missingness patterns.

02

Conditions studied

  • Psychological Stress
  • Work-Family Conflict
  • Family-Work Conflict

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Internet Intervention
  • Work-Family Conflict
  • Family-Work Conflict
  • Perceived Stress
  • Dual-Earner Couples
  • Dyadic Intervention
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Cohabiting heterosexual couples
  • Both partners are adults aged 18 or older,
  • Both partners work at least 20 hours per week,
  • Both partners have lived together in the same household for at least 1 year,
  • Expecting to continue living together throughout the study period,
  • Experiencing conflict between work and family life,
  • Interested in learning new strategies to manage work and family demands,
  • Both partners agree to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Either partner lacks access to an internet-connected device,
  • Either partner has insufficient Polish language skills to complete the online program and surveys.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
564 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Dyadic intervention condition

    Both partners in the dual-earner couple actively participate in the 3-week internet-delivered psychological intervention. Both partners complete assessments at all timepoints.

    Behavioral: Internet-delivered psychological intervention for work-family conflict

  • Experimental
    Individual female-partner intervention condition

    Only the female partner actively participates in the 3-week internet-delivered psychological intervention during the active trial phase. Both partners complete assessments at all timepoints.

    Behavioral: Internet-delivered psychological intervention for work-family conflict

  • Experimental
    Individual male-partner intervention condition

    Only the male partner actively participates in the 3-week internet-delivered psychological intervention during the active trial phase. Both partners complete assessments at all timepoints.

    Behavioral: Internet-delivered psychological intervention for work-family conflict

  • No intervention
    Waitlist control condition

    Neither partner receives access to the intervention during the active trial phase. Both partners complete assessments at all timepoints. Participants in this group are offered access to the intervention materials after the final 6-month follow-up assessment.

Interventions

  • BehavioralInternet-delivered psychological intervention for work-family conflict

    An unguided, 3-week internet-delivered intervention hosted on Google Classroom. It aims to help dual-earner couples manage time-based and strain-based work-family conflict. The program comprises two parallel strands combining psychoeducation, boundary management strategies, self-compassion, emotional awareness, implementation intentions, and behavioral experiments. In the dyadic condition, it also includes joint exercises involving mutual reflection and communication.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Perceived Stress

    Perceived stress will be assessed using the 4-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). The scale measures the extent to which participants perceive their lives as unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 0 ("never") to 4 ("very often"). Positively worded items are reverse scored, and item scores are summed. Higher scores indicate greater perceived stress.

    Time frame: Immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2) and at the 6-month follow-up (T3).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Work-to-Family Conflict (WFC)

    Assessed using the multidimensional measure developed by Carlson et al. (2000). This specific outcome evaluates interference originating in the work domain and affecting family life. It measures time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based dimensions of conflict. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). Higher scores indicate greater work-to-family conflict. Both composite scores and separate dimensional scores (time-based and strain-based) will be analyzed.

    Time frame: Immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2) and at the 6-month follow-up (T3).

  2. Family-to-Work Conflict (FWC)

    Assessed using the multidimensional measure developed by Carlson et al. (2000). This specific outcome evaluates interference originating in the family domain and affecting work. It measures time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based dimensions of conflict. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). Higher scores indicate greater family-to-work conflict. Both composite scores and separate dimensional scores (time-based and strain-based) will be analyzed.

    Time frame: Immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2) and at the 6-month follow-up (T3).

  3. Job Satisfaction

    Assessed using the 3-item Satisfaction with Job Scale (Zalewska, 2003), which evaluates the cognitive appraisal of one's work life. Items are rated on a 7-point scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly agree"). Higher scores indicate greater job satisfaction.

    Time frame: Immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2) and at the 6-month follow-up (T3).

  4. Family Satisfaction

    Assessed using a 3-item scale adapted from the Satisfaction with Family Life Scale (Zabriskie \& Ward, 2013) to evaluate cognitive satisfaction with family life. Items are rated on a 7-point scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly agree"). Higher scores indicate greater family satisfaction.

    Time frame: Immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2) and at the 6-month follow-up (T3).

Other outcomes

  1. Self-Compassion

    Assessed using the Polish adaptation of the Self-Compassion Scale Short Form (SCS-SF; 12 items). Evaluates self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness versus self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 ("almost never") to 5 ("almost always"). Higher scores indicate greater self-compassion.

    Time frame: Baseline (T1), immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2) and at the 6-month follow-up (T3).

  2. Segmentation and Integration Strategies

    Assessed using 6 items adapted from Kossek et al. (2012) measuring nonwork interrupting work behaviors and work interrupting nonwork behaviors. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). Higher scores reflect specific boundary management styles.

    Time frame: Baseline (T1), immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2) and at the 6-month follow-up (T3).

  3. Intervention Credibility and Outcome Expectancy

    Assessed using the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ; 6 items). Evaluates cognitive appraisal (credibility subscale) and beliefs about treatment outcome (expectancy subscale). Items 1-3 and 5 are rated on 9-point scales; items 4 and 6 are rated from 0% to 100%. Higher scores indicate higher credibility and expectancy.

    Time frame: Baseline (T1).

  4. User Experience

    Assessed using the short version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S). Measures pragmatic aspects (clarity, efficiency) and hedonic aspects (stimulation, novelty) of the intervention platform.

    Time frame: Immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2).

  5. Intervention Adherence (Quantitative, Qualitative, and Subjective)

    Intervention adherence will be evaluated using three complementary indices: Quantitative Adherence: The proportion of completed platform activities out of all assigned activities (score 0-1 or 0%-100%). Qualitative Adherence: Rated by trained judges using activity-specific rubrics on a scale from 0 to 4 based on task congruence and reflection depth (0 = inadequate/AI-generated without engagement; 4 = complete and highly task-congruent). Subjective Adherence: A weekly self-report item asking how carefully tasks were completed on a 5-point scale from 1 ("not carefully at all") to 5 ("very carefully"), averaged across weeks.

    Time frame: Weekly during the 3-week intervention period and immediately post-intervention (T2).

  6. Affective Engagement

    Assessed using an ultra-short adapted work engagement scale (3 items) rated on a 5-point scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). Calculated as the mean of weekly ratings.

    Time frame: Weekly during the 3-week intervention period and immediately post-intervention (T2).

  7. Intervention Fit (Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility)

    Assessed using 3 items (inspired by Weiner et al., 2017) measuring acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 ("completely disagree") to 5 ("completely agree").

    Time frame: Immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2).

  8. Dyadic Adherence and Engagement

    Assessed using a short survey administered to participants in the active intervention platform to evaluate mutual participation and engagement in joint exercises (e.g., "My partner actively engaged in joint exercises").

    Time frame: Immediately after the 3-week intervention period (T2).

06

Study locations

1 site
  • SWPS University
    Warsaw, Masovian Voivodeship 03-815, Poland
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — An anonymized dataset containing individual participant data underlying the study findings will be published in a public repository upon study completion.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Analytic code

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07845799
Lead sponsor
University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw
Collaborators
National Science Centre, Poland
Responsible party
Ewelina Smoktunowicz (Associate Professor, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw) — Principal investigator
First posted
Sep 29, 2026
Start date
Oct 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
May 2027 (estimated)
Completion
May 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 29, 2026

Study contacts

Ewelina Smoktunowicz, PhD
Contact
esmoktunowicz@swps.edu.pl
+48 22 517 99 21

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Sep 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion