Feasibility
Can the program be delivered consistently in a community setting?
The Science
Stronger Minds draws from positive psychology, social-connection research, behavioral science, cognitive neuroscience, and functional-outcomes research.
Research question
Can the program be delivered consistently in a community setting?
Do participants complete activities and find them acceptable?
Do participants report changes in well-being or social connection?
Can simple behavioral indicators be collected reliably?
Evidence base
Prior research supports studying structured positive-psychology approaches and social connection, but effects vary by intervention and population. Stronger Minds therefore treats the first study as a feasibility and community-implementation project rather than assuming efficacy.
Seligman et al. (2005) — empirical validation of positive-psychology interventions.
Sin & Lyubomirsky (2009) — meta-analysis of positive-psychology interventions and well-being.
Bolier et al. (2013) — meta-analysis of randomized controlled positive-psychology studies.
Tejada-Gallardo et al. (2020) — systematic review/meta-analysis of school-based positive-psychology interventions.
Fu et al. (2025) — systematic review/meta-analysis of strength-based capacity-building interventions.
Holt-Lunstad et al. (2015) — meta-analytic evidence on social isolation/loneliness and health.
Measurement philosophy
Recruitment, attendance, completion, time burden, satisfaction, fidelity, and unexpected events.
Well-being, social connection, meaningfulness, comfort, and perceived usefulness.
Simple, repeatable indicators such as task completion, response latency, or validated cognitive tasks when justified.
Scientific caution
A small pre/post pilot can reveal feasibility and preliminary signals, but it cannot establish clinical efficacy by itself. Future controlled studies should be designed with experienced research and clinical collaborators.