Marc Serfaty1, Megan Armstrong1,2, Victoria Vickerstaff1,3, Sarah Davis1, Anna Gola1, Philip McNamee1,2, Rumana Z Omar4, Michael King1, Adrian Tookman5, Louise Jones1, Joseph T S Low1. 1. Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK. 2. Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, St. Pancras Hospital, London, UK. 3. Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK. 4. Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK. 5. Marie Curie Hospice Hampstead, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the feasibility of recruiting people with advanced cancer into a randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs a standardised talking control (TC) and delivering ACT to this population; to explore the acceptability of outcome measures and generate normative data. METHODS: This was a feasibility two-arm randomised controlled trial. Participants were attendees with advanced cancer at one of three hospice-based day-therapy units in London, United Kingdom, who demonstrated low scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies-General (FACT-G). The primary end point was 3 months. RESULTS: The recruitment target was 54 participants; 42 people were recruited and randomised to up to eight individual sessions of ACT (n = 20) or TC (n = 22). Eighteen out of 42 (43%) of participants completed the primary outcome at 3 months, and at least one follow-up was available in 30/42 (71%) participants. An exploratory analysis revealed a non-significant adjusted mean difference after 3 months in the main outcome FACT-G of -3.41 (CI = -18.61-11.79) with TC having better functioning. Over 6 months, the adjusted mean difference between trial arms was 2.25 (CI = -6.03-10.52) in favour of ACT. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit people with advanced cancer in a trial of ACT versus TC. Future research should test the effectiveness of ACT in a fully powered trial.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To understand the feasibility of recruiting people with advanced cancer into a randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs a standardised talking control (TC) and delivering ACT to this population; to explore the acceptability of outcome measures and generate normative data. METHODS: This was a feasibility two-arm randomised controlled trial. Participants were attendees with advanced cancer at one of three hospice-based day-therapy units in London, United Kingdom, who demonstrated low scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies-General (FACT-G). The primary end point was 3 months. RESULTS: The recruitment target was 54 participants; 42 people were recruited and randomised to up to eight individual sessions of ACT (n = 20) or TC (n = 22). Eighteen out of 42 (43%) of participants completed the primary outcome at 3 months, and at least one follow-up was available in 30/42 (71%) participants. An exploratory analysis revealed a non-significant adjusted mean difference after 3 months in the main outcome FACT-G of -3.41 (CI = -18.61-11.79) with TC having better functioning. Over 6 months, the adjusted mean difference between trial arms was 2.25 (CI = -6.03-10.52) in favour of ACT. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit people with advanced cancer in a trial of ACT versus TC. Future research should test the effectiveness of ACT in a fully powered trial.
Authors: Jennifer C Plumb Vilardaga; Joseph G Winger; Irene Teo; Lynda Owen; Linda M Sutton; Francis J Keefe; Tamara J Somers Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams; Sabrina F Norwood; David Gillanders; Anne M Finucane; Juliet Spiller; Jenny Strachan; Susan Millington; Joseph Kreft; Brooke Swash Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.234