Impact

⚠️ Page mock-up. All numbers below are an example of how the page will look after the first cycle. Real data will appear as of [date]. Until then this page is not published.

As of [date] · updated after every cycle · methodology unchanged since [date]

The year at a glance

How we measure

We do not ask “did you like it”. We look at several independent things at once, because none of them alone proves a result.

1. Well-being before and after: three standard scales

Before the first meeting and after the last, every participant completes three short questionnaires used worldwide: WHO-5 (subjective well-being, 5 items), PHQ-9 (depression symptoms, 9 items) and GAD-7 (anxiety, 7 items). These are screening tools, not a diagnosis. Questionnaires are stored under a participant code, not a name.

Example, cycle 1, “Action” group, n = [10]:

[Chart: paired “before” and “after” bars for each scale, with individual participant dots overlaid so the spread is visible, not only the mean.]

How to read it: a WHO-5 change of 10 points or more is considered noticeable to the person. The share of participants with PHQ-9 ≥ 10 (moderate-depression threshold) fell from [6 of 10] to [3 of 10].

2. Does the effect last: three months later

Twelve weeks after the end we ask participants to complete the same questionnaires again. If the effect fades, that matters more than celebrating the result right after the group.

Example: WHO-5 at three months — [51] (after the cycle [54], before [38]). [7 of 10] responded.

[Line chart: three points “before → after → +3 months” for each scale.]

3. Do people stay: attendance and retention

A group that half the people left cannot have a good result, even if those who stayed are satisfied. So we count how many reach the end and say why the others left.

Example: [12] started, [10] completed (≥6 of 8 meetings). Two dropped out: one because of a work-schedule change, one moved away. Average attendance [7.4 of 8].

[Histogram of attendance by session.]

4. What people say: anonymous feedback and recommendation

After the cycle, an anonymous eight-question survey: usefulness, safety, what they took into their lives, what to change, whether they would recommend it.

Example: usefulness [4.6 of 5] · feel calmer [9 of 10] · would recommend [9 of 10].

Most frequent answers to “what have you already used in your life”: [“I learned to stop and breathe before answering my children”; “for the first time I told my husband what I am afraid of”; “I stopped checking the news every ten minutes”]. Quotes are published only with consent and without names.

5. Stories of change

Once per cycle we record two or three extended stories using the “most significant change” method: the participant describes what changed for them, rather than us deciding what matters. Stories are anonymous, details altered, published with written consent.

[“I came because I could not sleep while he was on rotation. I left the group not because I learned to sleep. But because I understood: I have the right to live while I wait. It sounds strange, but it changed everything.”] — participant, [N] years old, cycle [●]

6. For training modules: knowledge and intention

Well-being scales do not fit the “For the people who hold others” programme: a module lasts four hours. Here we measure something else: five knowledge questions before and after (for example, the steps of psychological first aid) and the intention to apply it within a month.

Example: correct answers before [2.1 of 5] → after [4.3 of 5]; “I plan to apply this within a month” — [22 of 25]. A month later we write again: applied it [14 of 19 who replied].

7. Safety as a result

We also count what must not happen: crisis situations at meetings and complaints. In [period]: crisis referrals — [1] (a participant referred to a psychiatrist, continued after consultation); complaints about the team — [0]; confidentiality incidents — [0].

8. For partners: do they come back

If a school or community books a module again, that is a signal it was useful. [3 of 4] partner institutions booked a follow-up or a second group within the year.

Honest about limitations

• We have no control group: we cannot prove that the changes happened because of the group rather than because of time or other events in life. We can show that they happened and held for three months.
• The scales are self-report. A person may answer “better” to please the facilitator. We reduce this with anonymous surveys and the three-month follow-up, but do not remove it entirely.
• Samples are small: ten people in a group. One person moves the mean. That is why we show individual points, not only averages.

What did not work

[One honest paragraph per year. Example: “In cycle 2 we formed a group with too wide a range of experience: wives of serving soldiers and widows. For the widows the pace was too fast; two left after the third meeting. From cycle 3 we form separate groups.”]

Reports

Full measurement methodology, questionnaire and consent forms: see Documents. Questions about the data: [email].