| Literature DB >> 36092683 |
Huiyuan Li1, Xiaohuan Jin1, Marques Shek Nam Ng1, Ka Fai Mann2, Nina Wang3, Cho Lee Wong1.
Abstract
Objective: The present study aimed to examine the feasibility and preliminary effects of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) on fatigue interference and health-related quality of life in patients with advanced lung cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; Fatigue; Health-related quality of life; Lung cancer
Year: 2022 PMID: 36092683 PMCID: PMC9449559 DOI: 10.1016/j.apjon.2022.100102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs ISSN: 2347-5625
Fig. 1Flow diagram of this study.
Themes and contents of the intervention.
| Themes | Outline | ACT process targeted |
|---|---|---|
| Session 1: | Self-introduction and introduction of purpose of the program and basic rules (completion of mindful breathing exercise). Help understand the interference of CRF in the process of suffering from advanced lung cancer and costs of controlling related thoughts and feelings (metaphor: The man in the hole). Master alternative strategies to cope with fatigue and distressing thoughts, feelings and feelings related to CRF and lung cancer more effectively (completion of ‘T’ puzzle game; Chinese Finger Trap). Master the strategies of focusing on the present moment (completion of ‘Be focused’ exercise). | Contact with the present moment. |
| Session 2: | Help separate the thoughts/feelings related to the CRF experience from the facts (mindful drinking exercise; metaphor: Passengers on the bus; experiential exercise: Labeling your thoughts; Milk, Milk, Milk). Help observe themselves in an objective way, treat the diagnosis of advanced lung cancer and thoughts/feels/feelings related to CRF experience objectively (experiential exercise: The sky and the weather). Consolidate strategies of acceptance and focus on present moment. | Contact with present moment. |
| Session 3: | Consolidate the strategies of acceptance, focus on the present moment, cognitive defusion and self-as-context (Eating a raisin exercise). Understand the difference between values and goals. Clarify personal values and their importance (Experiential exercise: 80th Birthday; Value compass). Setting one smallest value-based goal in SMART format (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound). | Contact with present moment. |
| Session 4: | Consolidate the strategies of acceptance, focus on the present moment, cognitive defusion and self-as-context (completion of Body scan exercise). Further clarify personal values and goals. Share own values with others to promote their action. Summary and feedback. | Contact with present moment. |
ACT, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; CRF, Cancer-related fatigue.
Characteristics of the participants.
| Characteristics | All ( | ACT group ( | UC group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 56.90 (7.05) | 54.75 (7.81) | 59.05 (5.60) | 0.052 |
| Gender, | 0.288 | |||
| Male | 29 (72.50) | 13 (65.00) | 16 (80.00) | |
| Female | 11 (27.50) | 7 (35.00) | 4 (20.00) | |
| Marital status, | 1.000 | |||
| Married | 39 (97.50) | 19 (95.00) | 20 (100.00) | |
| Divorced | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Widowed | 1 (2.50) | 1 (5.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Educational level, | 0.332 | |||
| Primary school or below | 10 (25.00) | 4 (20.00) | 6 (30.00) | |
| Junior high school | 14 (35.00) | 7 (35.00) | 7 (35.00) | |
| High school | 14 (35.00) | 7 (35.00) | 7 (35.00) | |
| Tertiary or above | 2 (5.00) | 2 (10.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Residence, | 0.710 | |||
| City | 9 (22.50) | 4 (20.0) | 5 (25.00) | |
| Town | 17 (42.50) | 10 (50.0) | 7 (35.00) | |
| Rural | 14 (35.00) | 6 (30.0) | 8 (40.00) | |
| Employment status, | 0.294 | |||
| Employed | 5 (12.50) | 4 (20.00) | 1 (5.00) | |
| Unemployed | 5 (12.50) | 4 (20.00) | 1 (5.00) | |
| Retired | 14 (35.00) | 6 (30.00) | 8 (40.00) | |
| Farming | 16 (40.00) | 6 (30.00) | 10 (50.00) | |
| Income per month (¥), | 0.303 | |||
| <1000 | 11 (27.50) | 3 (15.00) | 8 (40.00) | |
| 1000–3000 | 14 (35.00) | 10 (50.00) | 4 (20.00) | |
| 3000–5000 | 10 (25.00) | 3 (15.00) | 7 (35.00) | |
| >5000 | 5 (12.50) | 4 (20.00) | 1 (5.00) | |
| Type of lung cancer, | 0.288 | |||
| SCLC | 11 (27.50) | 4 (20.00) | 7 (35.00) | |
| NSCLC | 29 (72.50) | 16 (80.00) | 13 (65.00) | |
| Type of NSCLC, | 0.219 | |||
| Adenocarcinoma | 17 (58.62) | 11 (68.75) | 6 (46.15) | |
| Squamous carcinoma | 12 (41.38) | 5 (31.25) | 7 (53.85) | |
| Stage of SCLC, | – | |||
| Extensive stage | 11 (100.00) | 4 (100.00) | 7 (100.00) | |
| Limited stage | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Stage of lung cancer, | 0.088 | |||
| ⅢA | 3 (7.50) | 1 (5.00) | 2 (10.00) | |
| ⅢB | 1 (2.50) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (5.00) | |
| ⅣA | 26 (65.00) | 11 (55.00) | 15 (75.00) | |
| ⅣB | 10 (25.00) | 8 (40.00) | 2 (10.00) | |
| Length of diagnose (month), Mean (SD) | 9.48 (7.07) | 9.35 (6.93) | 9.60 (7.38) | 0.913 |
| Cancer treatment received, | 0.252 | |||
| Chemotherapy | 15 (37.50) | 5 (25.00) | 10 (50.00) | |
| Surgery and chemotherapy | 2 (5.00) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (10.00) | |
| Chemotherapy and radiotherapy | 1 (2.50) | 1 (5.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Chemotherapy and targeted therapy | 5 (12.50) | 4 (20.00) | 1 (5.00) | |
| Chemotherapy and immunotherapy | 11 (27.50) | 7 (35.00) | 4 (20.00) | |
| Surgery, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy | 2 (5.00) | 1 (5.00) | 1 (5.00) | |
| Surgery, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy | 1 (2.50) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (5.00) | |
| Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy | 2 (5.00) | 1 (5.00) | 1 (5.00) | |
| Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy | 1 (2.50) | 1 (5.00) | 0 (0.00) |
ACT, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; NSCLC, non-small-cell lung cancer; SCLC, small-cell lung cancer; SD, standard deviation; UC, usual care.
Independent t-test.
Chi-squared test.
Fisher's exact test.
Mann–Whitney U test.
ACT intervention satisfaction.
| Item | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. I can understand the content of the whole program. | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5%) | 19 (95%) |
| 2. The content of the whole program can meet my needs. | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (10%) | 18 (90%) |
| 3. Some metaphorical stories and mindfulness exercises are helpful to me. | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (10%) | 18 (90%) |
| 4. Setting goals and committed action are helpful to me. | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 20 (100%) |
| 5. I can easily apply the skills I have learned in the program into my real life. | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (15%) | 17 (85%) |
| 6. The format of the whole program is appropriate and reasonable. | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 20 (100%) |
| 7. The number of sessions and the duration of each session of the program are appropriate and reasonable. | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5%) | 2 (10%) | 17 (85%) |
| 8. Overall, I am satisfied with the content and design of the whole program. | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5%) | 19 (95%) |
ACT, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.
Changes in the outcome variables in the study groups across time using GEE model.
| T0 | T1 | T1 | Group | Group∗T1 | Cohen's | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fatigue interference | 1.300 (−4.039, 6.639) | 0.633 | −1.450 (−7.123, 4.223) | 0.616 | −4.950 (−10.621, 0.721) | 0.087 | −0.54 | ||
| Health-related quality of life | 1.692 (−2.543, 5.927) | 0.434 | −3.026 (−9.673, 3.621) | 0.372 | 8.267 (3.305, 13.229) | 0.001∗ | 0.73 | ||
| 0.850 (−1.179, 2.879) | 0.412 | 0.550 (−1.818, 2.918) | 0.649 | 0.850 (−1.576, 3.276) | 0.492 | 0.20 | |||
| 0.992 (−0.721, 2.705) | 0.256 | −1.226 (−3.664, 1.212) | 0.324 | 1.167 (−0.738, 3.072) | 0.230 | 0.28 | |||
| −1.950 (−3.268, −0.632) | 0.004∗ | −2.000 (−4.253, 0.253) | 0.082 | 4.100 (2.648, 5.552) | <0.001∗ | 1.13 | |||
| 0.600 (−0.635, 1.835) | 0.341 | 0.800 (−1.212, 2.812) | 0.436 | 1.800 (0.322, 3.278) | 0.017∗ | 0.52 | |||
| 1.200 (−0.197, 2.597) | 0.092 | −1.150 (−3.085, 0.785) | 0.244 | 0.350 (−1.137, 1.837) | 0.645 | 0.12 | |||
| Cancer-related fatigue | 1.000 (−1.004, 3.004) | 0.328 | −2.200 (−5.697, 1.297) | 0.218 | −5.700 (−8.252, −3.148) | <0.001∗ | −0.83 | ||
| 0.250 (−0.949, 1.449) | 0.683 | −0.900 (−2.538, 0.738) | 0.282 | −4.050 (−5.596, −2.504) | <0.001∗ | −1.29 | |||
| 0.500 (−0.475, 1.475) | 0.315 | 0.300 (−0.661, 1.261) | 0.541 | −0.950 (−2.023, 0.123) | 0.083 | −0.51 | |||
| 0.250 (−0.508, 1.008) | 0.518 | −1.600 (−3.253, 0.053) | 0.058 | −0.700 (−1.602, 0.202) | 0.128 | −0.23 | |||
| Depressive symptoms | −0.650 (−1.795, 0.495) | 0.266 | 0.750 (−0.995, 2.495) | 0.400 | −3.400 (−4.728, −2.072) | <0.001∗ | −1.32 | ||
| Anxiety | −0.500 (−1.278, 0.278) | 0.208 | 0.800 (−1.183, 2.783) | 0.429 | −2.700 (−3.818, −1.582) | <0.001∗ | −0.88 | ||
| Cancer-specific distress | 2.850 (−0.374, 6.074) | 0.083 | 2.450 (−1.554, 6.454) | 0.230 | −5.300 (−8.852, −1.748) | 0.003∗ | −0.76 | ||
| 1.700 (0.156, 3.244) | 0.031∗ | 1.600 (−0.513, 3.713) | 0.138 | −2.200 (−3.989, −0.411) | 0.016∗ | −0.57 | |||
| 1.400 (0.229, 2.571) | 0.019∗ | 0.700 (−0.687, 2.087) | 0.322 | −2.450 (−3.778, −1.122) | <0.001∗ | −1.05 | |||
| −0.250 (−1.267, 0.767) | 0.630 | 0.150 (−1.178, 1.478) | 0.825 | −0.650 (−1.840, 0.540) | 0.285 | −0.29 | |||
Notes: T0: baseline; T1: one-week post-intervention. Baseline and post-intervention scores reported as mean and SD.
ACT, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; CI, confidence interval; EWB, emotional well-being; FWB, functional well-being; GEE, generalized estimating equation model; LCS, lung cancer subscale; PWB, physical well-being; SWB, social/family well-being; UC, usual care.
B: average difference on outcome variables with reference to the baseline measurement.
aCohen's d effect size was calculated for the between-group effects based on the change score of means and SDs of the two groups at one week postintervention with respect to the baseline.
∗P < 0.05.