Examining domains of psychological flexibility and inflexibility as treatment mechanisms in acceptance and commitment therapy: A comprehensive systematic and meta-analytic review

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Jenna A. Macri, Ronald D. Rogge
{"title":"Examining domains of psychological flexibility and inflexibility as treatment mechanisms in acceptance and commitment therapy: A comprehensive systematic and meta-analytic review","authors":"Jenna A. Macri,&nbsp;Ronald D. Rogge","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The current systematic and meta-analytic review sought to integrate a growing number of studies examining dimensions of psychological flexibility as treatment mechanisms for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Analyses of 77 records (67 unique studies; N<sub>total</sub> = 9123 participants) from comprehensive searches of multiple databases suggested that ACT interventions led to reduced inflexibility (i.e., lowered global inflexibility, lack of present moment awareness, cognitive fusion, experiential avoidance, self-as-content, &amp; inaction) and increased flexibility (i.e., committed action/contact with values, global flexibility/acceptance, &amp; defusion). Those changes remained significant when ACT was compared with waitlist or active treatments and were significantly linked to corresponding drops in psychological distress, supporting their roles as ACT treatment mechanisms. Moderation analyses revealed that the use of student samples, exclusion of clinically symptomatic individuals, and comparisons of ACT with other active treatments weakened these effects whereas offering ACT as an individual therapy and excluding individuals in extreme crisis (i.e., with suicidal ideation) strengthened them. The meta-analytic findings and systematic review suggested specific recommendations for future clinical work and research on ACT mechanisms: (1) Evaluate both psychological flexibility and inflexibility as distinct treatment mechanisms, (2) Evaluate specific dimensions of psychological flexibility/inflexibility as mechanisms with multidimensional scales (CompACT, MPFI), (3) Broaden treatment outcomes to include forms of wellbeing (peace of mind, vitality, connectedness), (4) Assess mechanisms and outcomes repeatedly throughout treatment to model the process of therapeutic change, (5) Investigate non-specific factors (therapeutic alliance, treatment adherence) as mechanisms, and (6) Explore treatment mechanisms in effectiveness studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000539","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current systematic and meta-analytic review sought to integrate a growing number of studies examining dimensions of psychological flexibility as treatment mechanisms for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Analyses of 77 records (67 unique studies; Ntotal = 9123 participants) from comprehensive searches of multiple databases suggested that ACT interventions led to reduced inflexibility (i.e., lowered global inflexibility, lack of present moment awareness, cognitive fusion, experiential avoidance, self-as-content, & inaction) and increased flexibility (i.e., committed action/contact with values, global flexibility/acceptance, & defusion). Those changes remained significant when ACT was compared with waitlist or active treatments and were significantly linked to corresponding drops in psychological distress, supporting their roles as ACT treatment mechanisms. Moderation analyses revealed that the use of student samples, exclusion of clinically symptomatic individuals, and comparisons of ACT with other active treatments weakened these effects whereas offering ACT as an individual therapy and excluding individuals in extreme crisis (i.e., with suicidal ideation) strengthened them. The meta-analytic findings and systematic review suggested specific recommendations for future clinical work and research on ACT mechanisms: (1) Evaluate both psychological flexibility and inflexibility as distinct treatment mechanisms, (2) Evaluate specific dimensions of psychological flexibility/inflexibility as mechanisms with multidimensional scales (CompACT, MPFI), (3) Broaden treatment outcomes to include forms of wellbeing (peace of mind, vitality, connectedness), (4) Assess mechanisms and outcomes repeatedly throughout treatment to model the process of therapeutic change, (5) Investigate non-specific factors (therapeutic alliance, treatment adherence) as mechanisms, and (6) Explore treatment mechanisms in effectiveness studies.

将心理灵活性和不灵活性领域作为接受和承诺疗法的治疗机制进行研究:全面系统和元分析综述
当前的系统性和荟萃分析综述试图整合越来越多的研究,这些研究将心理灵活性的各个层面作为接受与承诺疗法(ACT)的治疗机制。通过对多个数据库中的 77 项记录(67 项独特的研究;总人数 = 9123 名参与者)进行全面搜索,分析结果表明,接纳与承诺疗法干预可降低不灵活度(即降低整体不灵活度、缺乏当下意识、认知融合、经验回避、自我满足以及不作为),提高灵活性(即承诺行动/与价值观接触、整体灵活性/接纳以及化解)。在将 ACT 与等待治疗或积极治疗进行比较时,这些变化仍然很明显,并且与心理困扰的相应下降有明显联系,这支持了它们作为 ACT 治疗机制的作用。调节分析表明,使用学生样本、排除有临床症状的个体以及将 ACT 与其他积极疗法进行比较会削弱这些效果,而将 ACT 作为个体疗法并排除处于极端危机中的个体(即有自杀意念的个体)则会加强这些效果。荟萃分析结果和系统综述为今后的临床工作和 ACT 机制研究提出了具体建议:(1)将心理灵活性和非灵活性作为不同的治疗机制进行评估;(2)使用多维量表(CompACT、MPFI)将心理灵活性/非灵活性的特定维度作为机制进行评估;(3)扩大治疗结果的范围,使其包括各种形式的幸福感(心境平和、活力、连通性);(4)在整个治疗过程中反复评估机制和结果,以模拟治疗变化的过程;(5)将非特定因素(治疗联盟、治疗依从性)作为机制进行调查;(6)在有效性研究中探索治疗机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信