Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams1, Lesley Storey2. 1. Chester Research Unit for the Psychology of Health (CRUPH), Department of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UK. n.hulbertwilliams@chester.ac.uk. 2. School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The evidence for the effectiveness of psychological interventions for cancer patients is currently unclear. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which increases individual's levels of psychological flexibility, may be more effective than other frameworks of psychological intervention, but good quality research is needed to inform adoption and implementation. This study explored the correlation between psychological flexibility and patient-reported outcomes to assess the viability of this intervention for cancer survivors. METHODS: Recruitment was coordinated through a regional cancer centre. One hundred twenty-nine respondents completed a cross-sectional postal questionnaire. They were of mixed gender, diagnosis and cancer stage; a mean 61 years old; and a mean 207 days post-diagnosis. Self-report questionnaires assessed psychological flexibility, mood, anxiety, depression, stress, quality of life and benefit finding. RESULTS: Psychological flexibility was a strong and consistent correlate of outcome; effects were maintained even when potentially confounding clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were controlled. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological flexibility can be modified through ACT-based interventions. Given the strong correlational evidence found in this study, it seems that such interventions might be useful for cancer survivors. High-quality and well-designed controlled trials are now needed to establish effectiveness.
PURPOSE: The evidence for the effectiveness of psychological interventions for cancerpatients is currently unclear. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which increases individual's levels of psychological flexibility, may be more effective than other frameworks of psychological intervention, but good quality research is needed to inform adoption and implementation. This study explored the correlation between psychological flexibility and patient-reported outcomes to assess the viability of this intervention for cancer survivors. METHODS: Recruitment was coordinated through a regional cancer centre. One hundred twenty-nine respondents completed a cross-sectional postal questionnaire. They were of mixed gender, diagnosis and cancer stage; a mean 61 years old; and a mean 207 days post-diagnosis. Self-report questionnaires assessed psychological flexibility, mood, anxiety, depression, stress, quality of life and benefit finding. RESULTS: Psychological flexibility was a strong and consistent correlate of outcome; effects were maintained even when potentially confounding clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were controlled. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological flexibility can be modified through ACT-based interventions. Given the strong correlational evidence found in this study, it seems that such interventions might be useful for cancer survivors. High-quality and well-designed controlled trials are now needed to establish effectiveness.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acceptance; Cancer; Distress; Intervention; Oncology; Quality of life
Authors: Julie Loebach Wetherell; Niloofar Afari; Thomas Rutledge; John T Sorrell; Jill A Stoddard; Andrew J Petkus; Brittany C Solomon; David H Lehman; Lin Liu; Ariel J Lang; J Hampton Atkinson Journal: Pain Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: V Morrison; B J Henderson; F Zinovieff; G Davies; R Cartmell; A Hall; S Gollins Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2011-05-08 Impact factor: 2.398
Authors: R K Wicksell; M Kemani; K Jensen; E Kosek; D Kadetoff; K Sorjonen; M Ingvar; G L Olsson Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 3.931
Authors: Catherine E Mosher; Danielle B Tometich; Adam Hirsh; Kevin L Rand; Shelley A Johns; Marianne S Matthias; Samantha D Outcalt; Jonathan Bricker; Bryan Schneider; Lida Mina; Anna Maria Storniolo; Erin Newton; Kathy Miller Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Catherine E Mosher; Ekin Secinti; Ruohong Li; Adam T Hirsh; Jonathan Bricker; Kathy D Miller; Bryan Schneider; Anna Maria Storniolo; Lida Mina; Erin V Newton; Victoria L Champion; Shelley A Johns Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ashley B Lewson; Shelley A Johns; Ellen Krueger; Kelly Chinh; Kelley M Kidwell; Catherine E Mosher Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams; Sabrina Norwood; David Gillanders; Anne Finucane; Juliet Spiller; Jenny Strachan; Sue Millington; Brooke Swash Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2019-08-20
Authors: Katharina Kuba; Gregor Weißflog; Heide Götze; Francisco García-Torres; Anja Mehnert; Peter Esser Journal: Int J Clin Health Psychol Date: 2019-01-16
Authors: Inga Plaskocinska; Hannah Shipman; James Drummond; Edward Thompson; Vanessa Buchanan; Barbara Newcombe; Charlotte Hodgkin; Elisa Barter; Paul Ridley; Rita Ng; Suzanne Miller; Adela Dann; Victoria Licence; Hayley Webb; Li Tee Tan; Margaret Daly; Sarah Ayers; Barnaby Rufford; Helena Earl; Christine Parkinson; Timothy Duncan; Mercedes Jimenez-Linan; Gurdeep S Sagoo; Stephen Abbs; Nicholas Hulbert-Williams; Paul Pharoah; Robin Crawford; James D Brenton; Marc Tischkowitz Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 6.318