Brief transdiagnostic group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for acute inpatients with complex mental health conditions: A randomised pilot study using an active social control

IF 3.4 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Gavin Prowse , Elizabeth Conroy , Lise Mogensen
{"title":"Brief transdiagnostic group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for acute inpatients with complex mental health conditions: A randomised pilot study using an active social control","authors":"Gavin Prowse ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Conroy ,&nbsp;Lise Mogensen","doi":"10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The present study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a brief transdiagnostic group-based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Valued Living Program, VLP) versus an active social control condition (Social Discussion Group, SDG) for inpatients admitted for acute mental health conditions.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Participants were group randomised to three sessions of the VLP (<em>n</em> = 17) or the SDG (<em>n</em> = 19) plus treatment-as-usual (TAU). The primary outcomes were service use data (emergency department presentations and inpatient admissions). Participants were assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at 4 and 12-months post-discharge on quantitative and qualitative secondary outcomes of psychological and behavioural functioning.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Both interventions were rated as acceptable and useful. Primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated a longitudinal pattern of improvement for the VLP condition relative to the SDG condition. Longitudinal drop-out was high, which reduced the reliability of quantitative secondary outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The VLP appears acceptable to inpatients experiencing acute mental health conditions. Positive initial outcomes support further investigation into the VLP's effectiveness. However, the feasibility of evaluating the VLP via RCT was limited by poor participant retention which might be improved with additional study resources. Further investigation into protocol engagement is also warranted prior to proceeding with a larger RCT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 100821"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212144724001017/pdfft?md5=87dc526fe4436849c7742723daed1da9&pid=1-s2.0-S2212144724001017-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212144724001017","RegionNum":3,"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

Objectives

The present study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a brief transdiagnostic group-based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Valued Living Program, VLP) versus an active social control condition (Social Discussion Group, SDG) for inpatients admitted for acute mental health conditions.

Method

Participants were group randomised to three sessions of the VLP (n = 17) or the SDG (n = 19) plus treatment-as-usual (TAU). The primary outcomes were service use data (emergency department presentations and inpatient admissions). Participants were assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at 4 and 12-months post-discharge on quantitative and qualitative secondary outcomes of psychological and behavioural functioning.

Results

Both interventions were rated as acceptable and useful. Primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated a longitudinal pattern of improvement for the VLP condition relative to the SDG condition. Longitudinal drop-out was high, which reduced the reliability of quantitative secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

The VLP appears acceptable to inpatients experiencing acute mental health conditions. Positive initial outcomes support further investigation into the VLP's effectiveness. However, the feasibility of evaluating the VLP via RCT was limited by poor participant retention which might be improved with additional study resources. Further investigation into protocol engagement is also warranted prior to proceeding with a larger RCT.

针对患有复杂精神疾病的急性住院病人的简短跨诊断小组接纳与承诺疗法:采用积极社会控制的随机试点研究
本研究考察了基于接受与承诺疗法(ACT;Valued Living Program,VLP)的简短跨诊断小组疗法与积极社会控制条件(社会讨论小组,SDG)对因急性精神健康状况入院的住院患者的可行性和可接受性。主要结果是服务使用数据(急诊室就诊人数和住院人数)。在治疗前、治疗后以及出院后 4 个月和 12 个月,对参与者的心理和行为功能的定量和定性次要结果进行评估。主要和次要结果表明,VLP 条件比 SDG 条件有纵向改善。纵向辍学率较高,这降低了量化次要结果的可靠性。积极的初步结果支持进一步研究 VLP 的有效性。然而,通过 RCT 评估 VLP 的可行性受到了参与者保留率低的限制,如果增加研究资源,可能会有所改善。在进行更大规模的 RCT 之前,还需要进一步调查协议参与情况。
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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
18.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science is the official journal of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS). Contextual Behavioral Science is a systematic and pragmatic approach to the understanding of behavior, the solution of human problems, and the promotion of human growth and development. Contextual Behavioral Science uses functional principles and theories to analyze and modify action embedded in its historical and situational context. The goal is to predict and influence behavior, with precision, scope, and depth, across all behavioral domains and all levels of analysis, so as to help create a behavioral science that is more adequate to the challenge of the human condition.
×
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