| Literature DB >> 29941419 |
Joseph Tighe1, Jennifer Nicholas2, Fiona Shand2, Helen Christensen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since its emergence in the 1980s, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) has become a reputable evidence-based psychological therapy for certain disorders. Trials examining the efficacy of ACT are spread across a broad spectrum of presentations, such as chronic pain, anxiety, and depression. Nevertheless, ACT has very rarely been trialed as an intervention for suicidal ideation (SI) or deliberate self-harm (DSH).Entities:
Keywords: ACT; acceptance and commitment therapy; cognitive behavioral therapy; deliberate self-harm; depression; mHealth; mental health; psychology; suicidal ideation; suicide
Year: 2018 PMID: 29941419 PMCID: PMC6037942 DOI: 10.2196/10732
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Ment Health ISSN: 2368-7959
Figure 1Study selection flow diagram. ACT: acceptance and commitment therapy; DSH: deliberate self-harm.
Summary of included studies.
| Authors | Sample | Study intervention | Control condition | Suicide/Self-harm specific outcome variables | Length of intervention | Follow-up intervals | SIa/DSHb results |
| Tighe et al (2017) | Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian youth ages 18-35 (N=61) | ACTc mHealth app (ibobbly) | Waitlist (6 weeks) | SI (DSI-SSd) | Self-help app over 6 weeks | None | 30% reduction in SI but nonsignificant |
| Walser et al (2015) | Veterans (N=981) | ACT-De (specifically designed for veterans) | None | SI (BDI-IIf, 1 SI Item) | 12-16 psychotherapy sessions | None | 20.5% reduction in prevalence of SI among participants |
| Ducasse et al (2014) | Psychiatric patients (N=37) | ACT | None | SI (C-SSRSg), Scale for | 7 weekly 2 h sessions | 1 week and 3 months | Significant reductions in all SI measures at 1-week and 3-month follow-up |
| Luoma & Valatte (2012) | Case studies (N=2) | ACT | None | Case study reports on suicidal ideation and self-harm. | 38 psychotherapy sessions (n=1) | 1 year (n=1) and unspecified (n=1) | Reductions in SI (N=2). |
| Rassaque et al (2012) | Case studies (N=3) | ACT | None | Interviews and hospital ward reports measuring suicidal ideation and self-harm expression | 20 minute one-to-one sessions over 2 to 3 weeks | Unspecified | “a marked reduction in self-harm and suicidal ideation” (n=1), “changes in expression of self-harm or suicidal ideation” (n=2) |
aSI: suicidal ideation.
bDSH: deliberate self-harm.
cACT: acceptance and commitment therapy.
dDSI-SS: Depressive Symptom Inventory—Suicidality Subscale.
eACT-D: acceptance and commitment therapy for depression.
fBDI-II: Beck Depressive Inventory.
gC-SSRS: Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale.
Outcome measures reported in the included studies. An "X" indicates the presence of the measure.
| Measure | Tighe et al (2017) | Walser et al (2015) | Ducasse et al (2014) | Luoma and Valatte (2012) | Razzaque et al (2012) |
| Scale for Suicidal Ideation | X | ||||
| Suicidal Ideation (Self-Assessment Visual Analog scale) | X | ||||
| Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (suicidal ideation subscore=severity and intensity items) | X | ||||
| Suicidal Ideation | X | ||||
| Beck Depressive Inventory-II | X | X | |||
| Patient Health Questionnaire | X | ||||
| Kessler 10 | X | ||||
| Barrett Impulsivity Scale | X | ||||
| Acceptance and Action Questionnaire | X | X | |||
| Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire | X | X (n=1) | |||
| Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (French version) | X | ||||
| Screening Interview for Axis II Disorder | X | ||||
| Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology | X | ||||
| Functioning Assessment Short Test | X | ||||
| Pharmacological treatment and number of visits for psychiatric emergencies (previous 3 months) | X | ||||
| Psychological pain on a visual analog scale | X | ||||
| State-Trait Anxiety Inventory | X | ||||
| Beck Hopelessness Scale | X | ||||
| World Health Organization Quality of Life measure | X | ||||
| Clinical Global Index | X |
Risk of bias for the randomized controlled study reported by Tighe et al (2017) [27].
| Entry | Judgment | Support for judgment |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: “using block randomization stratified by gender (16 per block), using computer-generated randomization” Comment: Probably done. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: “Each block randomization was performed offline by a member of the research team at the Black Dog Institute and sent to the research officer in Broome.” Comment: Probably done. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | High risk | Quote: “research officer in Broome who was responsible for and not blind to the intervention allocation” Comment: Probably not done. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias; patient-reported outcomes) | Low risk | No blinding of outcome assessment used. Outcome measures were self-reported and it is unlikely that the outcome measurement would be influenced by blinding. |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed (attrition bias) | Low risk | Follow-up: minimal missing data. 2/31 missing from intervention group; 0/30 missing from control group. Reasons unlikely to be related to outcome. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Quote: “The study protocol has been published.” |