Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes Testing to Reduce Stress Symptoms Among Clergy

Certain populations may be particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of chronic stress, particularly chronic work-related stress. One such population is that of clergy doing ministry work. Clergy exhibit high prevalence rates of chronic disease, including diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and joint-related disease, as well as obesity. Further, studies also indicate above-average rates of depression. While no studies directly compare rates of clinical anxiety among clergy versus non-clergy, anxiety rates among clergy are elevated. The high prevalence of physical and mental health issues among clergy may be due in part to stressors from the unique nature of clergy work.

A prominent theory of stress is the job-demand-control-support (JDCS) model, which indicates that stressful jobs are those characterized by high demand, low control, and low support. Clergy perform many demanding roles, including inspiring the congregation, providing one-on-one care for congregants, performing sacraments, educating congregants, overseeing educational programming, and leading social justice activities. The work week typically averages 50 hours or more with the expectation of being on call around-the-clock and the range of skills needed is broad. While certain tasks such as preaching are predictable, clergy have no control over the timing of funerals and congregant crises, and only a variable degree of control over congregant perception of the direction the clergy are taking the congregation. Congregants who are committed to the congregation have strong and often conflicting opinions. In terms of support, clergy experience work-related support to varying degrees; they direct essentially a volunteer workforce and, with the wide range of tasks conducted, they often do not receive the support needed to match the tasks or the emotional challenges faced.

Researchers have developed numerous approaches to manage stress, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness, and relaxation. Not all stress-management interventions are equally effective. Rather, stress-reducing activities are viewed as skills that require regular practice. As such, the most effective interventions are those that individuals are willing and motivated to practice (i.e., patient-preference is an important aspect of evidence-based practice). The current study builds on a pilot study that the investigators conducted with clergy to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of four potentially stress-reducing interventions while taking participant preference into account. Three of those stress-reducing interventions showed trends of self-reported stress reduction in terms of reduced stress symptoms and/or reactivity to stress. In the current study, the investigators test those three interventions: Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, the Daily Examen, and a set of stress inoculation and breathing exercises called Stress Proofing.

The study design is a waitlist preferences design. As such, participants choose which of the three interventions they prefer, taking into account the intervention content, format, and scheduling dates. The intervention groups will consist of clergy who sign up for the intervention during the initial recruitment phase and are randomly assigned to start before November 2020. (A secondary per-protocol analysis will include in the intervention groups any clergy who sign up for the intervention after the initial recruitment phase.) The control group will consist of clergy who sign up for the intervention during the initial recruitment phase and are randomly assigned to an intervention start time of November 2020 or later. In addition to random assignment to immediate-start versus delayed-start (waitlist), participants who indicate equal preference for two or more interventions will be randomly assigned to one of their preferred interventions. The investigators' study design allows for testing stress outcomes between those participants who preferred that intervention and those who were waiting for intervention. The design will not allow for comparing outcomes between interventions.