Community service providers (CSPs), such as promotores and other community health staff, play an essential role in preserving health and treating disease in underserved Hispanic/Latinx (HL) communities with disproportionately high rates of cardiometabolic (CM) disease. Although effective programs have been developed that deploy CSPs to reduce CM disease risk in the community, to our knowledge no interventions have sought to reduce CM risk among CSPs themselves. However, CSPs are also at high risk for adverse CM outcomes, as they have the same high-risk demographics as the communities they serve and they work in high-stress, frontline jobs. Reducing CM risk among HL CSPs is crucial to promote health at both the individual and community levels; that is, preventive interventions delivered to CSPs may not only promote the health of the individual CSPs who receive the intervention but also may bolster CSPs to more effectively deliver programming that protects CM health community-wide. The proposed study employs relational savoring (RS), a brief intervention rooted in positive psychology and attachment, which has previously been shown to promote psychosocial well-being and which is particularly efficacious in HL populations. Emerging research supports that RS may also promote more optimal cardiovascular regulation and health behavior. Therefore, the investigators deliver RS to CSPs in order to identify CM health protective effects for both CSPs and the high-risk communities they serve. Aims and Hypotheses: Aim 1: Examine effects of RS on CSPs' CM risk factors and outcomes. Hypotheses: RS (compared to wait-list control) will be associated with lower CM risk, as indexed by higher mean HRV, both during a stressor and at rest (H1A). RS will also be associated with a more favorable CM health behavior profile, indexed by higher quality sleep, more exercise, and healthier diet (H1B). Aim 2: Examine effects of RS on CSPs' delivery of CM health programming to the community. Hypotheses: RS will be associated both with reduced threats to CSPs leaving the workforce, including higher satisfaction with work, greater agency, and lower burnout (H2A), and with a higher number of community members reached for CM health programming, as indexed by number of days CSP worked, number of health-related events offered by CSPs, community attendance at events, and retention of community members across multi-day programs (H2B).
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Impact of Intervention on Heart Rate Variability
Timeframe: Assessed at Baseline 1 for both groups and 4 weeks later (post-intervention for intervention participants and Baseline 2 for waitlist control participants). Post-intervention data were not collected for the waitlist control group.
Acceptability of the Relational Savoring Intervention
Timeframe: Immediately following completion of the 4-week intervention and at 3 months post-intervention.
Impact of Intervention on Perceived Closeness to the Community
Timeframe: Immediately before and after each weekly intervention session (Sessions 1-4, approximately 1 hour apart per session), during the 4-week intervention period.
Impact of Intervention on Negative Emotional Valence
Timeframe: Immediately before and after each weekly intervention session (Sessions 1-4, approximately 1 hour apart per session), during the 4-week intervention period.
Impact of Intervention on Sleep Quality
Timeframe: Baseline (prior to intervention), immediately following completion of the 4-week intervention, and at 3 months post-intervention.
Impact of Intervention on Diet
Timeframe: Baseline (prior to intervention), immediately following completion of the 4-week intervention, and at 3 months post-intervention.
Impact of Intervention on Burnout
Timeframe: From baseline (prior to intervention), immediately following completion of the 4-week intervention, and at 3 months post-intervention.
Impact of Intervention on Job Satisfaction
Timeframe: From baseline (prior to intervention), immediately following completion of the 4-week intervention, and at 3 months post-intervention.
Impact of Intervention on Psychological Distress
Timeframe: From baseline (prior to intervention), immediately following completion of the 4-week intervention, and at 3 months post-intervention.
Impact of Intervention on General Health
Timeframe: From baseline (prior to intervention), immediately following completion of the 4-week intervention, and at 3 months post-intervention.
Impact of Intervention on Community Outreach
Timeframe: Baseline (prior to intervention), immediately following completion of the 4-week intervention, and at 3 months post-intervention.