Cara Dochat1,2, Jennalee S Wooldridge2,3,4, Matthew S Herbert2,3,4, Michael W Lee2, Niloofar Afari2,3,4. 1. San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 4. VA Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Chronic health conditions (CHCs) are costly and difficult to manage. Patients often struggle with behavioral adherence to complex treatment regimens and experience psychiatric distress. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a transdiagnostic behavioral approach that aims to improve functioning and quality of life (QoL), which are important treatment outcomes for this population. Preliminary efficacy of multi-session ACT in patients with CHCs has been demonstrated, and single-session ACT interventions have since been developed to increase feasibility, acceptability, and accessibility. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to describe the literature on single-session ACT intervention studies in CHC populations with regards to (1) study design and methodology, (2) patient characteristics and conditions targeted, and (3) efficacy for outcomes across various domains, using narrative and quantitative methods. METHODS: PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched in August 2020. Studies of single-session ACT interventions in adult patients with CHCs that reported quantitative outcomes in any of the following domains were included: (a) functioning and related domains (e.g., disability, QoL, well-being); (b) mental health; (c) physical health; (d) ACT processes. Both controlled and uncontrolled studies were included. Study quality was assessed using the Psychotherapy Outcome Study Methodology Rating Scale (POMRF). Between-group random effects meta-analysis was conducted on general functioning outcomes. RESULTS: Fourteen manuscripts reporting outcomes from 13 studies (N = 793) met inclusion criteria. Ten studies were identified by their authors as pilot or feasibility trials. Eight studies used comparison or control groups. Twelve studies delivered the ACT content in workshop format. Studies recruited for a variety of conditions. Narrative review found that between- and within-group effect sizes showed generally positive results favoring single-session ACT overall (69%), especially for measures of functioning and related domains (88%), mental health (67%), and ACT processes (73%). Meta-analysis found that ACT did not significantly outperform comparison groups on measures of general functioning (Hedges' g: -0.51, 95% confidence interval: [-1.19, 0.16]; I 2 = 86%; K = 5) despite a medium-sized pooled effect. DISCUSSION: Use of single-session ACT interventions in CHC populations is an emergent field. There is preliminary evidence for the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of these interventions, which provides support for further testing in fully-powered RCTs. Additional RCTs will enable larger meta-analyses and stronger conclusions about efficacy. Recommendations for future trials are provided.
RATIONALE: Chronic health conditions (CHCs) are costly and difficult to manage. Patients often struggle with behavioral adherence to complex treatment regimens and experience psychiatric distress. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a transdiagnostic behavioral approach that aims to improve functioning and quality of life (QoL), which are important treatment outcomes for this population. Preliminary efficacy of multi-session ACT in patients with CHCs has been demonstrated, and single-session ACT interventions have since been developed to increase feasibility, acceptability, and accessibility. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to describe the literature on single-session ACT intervention studies in CHC populations with regards to (1) study design and methodology, (2) patient characteristics and conditions targeted, and (3) efficacy for outcomes across various domains, using narrative and quantitative methods. METHODS: PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched in August 2020. Studies of single-session ACT interventions in adult patients with CHCs that reported quantitative outcomes in any of the following domains were included: (a) functioning and related domains (e.g., disability, QoL, well-being); (b) mental health; (c) physical health; (d) ACT processes. Both controlled and uncontrolled studies were included. Study quality was assessed using the Psychotherapy Outcome Study Methodology Rating Scale (POMRF). Between-group random effects meta-analysis was conducted on general functioning outcomes. RESULTS: Fourteen manuscripts reporting outcomes from 13 studies (N = 793) met inclusion criteria. Ten studies were identified by their authors as pilot or feasibility trials. Eight studies used comparison or control groups. Twelve studies delivered the ACT content in workshop format. Studies recruited for a variety of conditions. Narrative review found that between- and within-group effect sizes showed generally positive results favoring single-session ACT overall (69%), especially for measures of functioning and related domains (88%), mental health (67%), and ACT processes (73%). Meta-analysis found that ACT did not significantly outperform comparison groups on measures of general functioning (Hedges' g: -0.51, 95% confidence interval: [-1.19, 0.16]; I 2 = 86%; K = 5) despite a medium-sized pooled effect. DISCUSSION: Use of single-session ACT interventions in CHC populations is an emergent field. There is preliminary evidence for the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of these interventions, which provides support for further testing in fully-powered RCTs. Additional RCTs will enable larger meta-analyses and stronger conclusions about efficacy. Recommendations for future trials are provided.
Entities:
Keywords:
ACT; acceptance and commitment therapy; brief; chronic health conditions; meta-analysis; systematic review; workshop
Authors: Frank W Bond; Steven C Hayes; Ruth A Baer; Kenneth M Carpenter; Nigel Guenole; Holly K Orcutt; Tom Waltz; Robert D Zettle Journal: Behav Ther Date: 2011-05-25
Authors: Allison B Grigsby; Ryan J Anderson; Kenneth E Freedland; Ray E Clouse; Patrick J Lustman Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Heidi Frølund Pedersen; Johanne L Agger; Lisbeth Frostholm; Jens S Jensen; Eva Ørnbøl; Per Fink; Andreas Schröder Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Christopher M Celano; Daniel J Daunis; Hermioni N Lokko; Kirsti A Campbell; Jeff C Huffman Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Deborah J Bowen; Matthew Kreuter; Bonnie Spring; Ludmila Cofta-Woerpel; Laura Linnan; Diane Weiner; Suzanne Bakken; Cecilia Patrick Kaplan; Linda Squiers; Cecilia Fabrizio; Maria Fernandez Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Matthew S Herbert; Cara Dochat; Jennalee S Wooldridge; Karla Materna; Brian H Blanco; Mara Tynan; Michael W Lee; Marianna Gasperi; Angela Camodeca; Devon Harris; Niloofar Afari Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2021-11-12
Authors: Joseph Lavelle; Darragh Storan; Varsha Eswara Murthy; Noemi De Dominicis; Hugh E Mulcahy; Louise McHugh Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 4.964