Acceptance and commitment therapy processes and their association with distress in cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-04 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2023.2261518
Sophie Fawson, Zoe Moon, Katherine Novogrudsky, Faye Moxham, Katie Forster, Insun Tribe, Rona Moss-Morris, Caroline Johnson, Lyndsay D Hughes
{"title":"Acceptance and commitment therapy processes and their association with distress in cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Sophie Fawson, Zoe Moon, Katherine Novogrudsky, Faye Moxham, Katie Forster, Insun Tribe, Rona Moss-Morris, Caroline Johnson, Lyndsay D Hughes","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2023.2261518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Around 42% of individuals with cancer experience distress. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) can reduce distress, but effects are small, and mechanisms unclear. This review aimed to identify associations between ACT processes and distress in cancer. Search terms included cancer, ACT processes, self-compassion, and distress. Six online databases and grey literature were searched until March 2022. Of 6555 papers screened, 108 studies were included with 17,195 participants. Five meta-analyses of 77 studies were conducted. Random effects meta-analyses of correlations revealed higher scores on flexible processes (acceptance, present moment awareness, self-compassion) were associated with lower distress (<i>r</i><sub>pooled</sub> = -0.24, -0.39, -0.48, respectively); whilst higher scores on inflexible processes (experiential avoidance, cognitive fusion) were associated with higher distress (<i>r</i><sub>pooled</sub> = 0.58, 0.57, respectively). Meta-analyses displayed moderate-to-high heterogeneity with most studies assessed as low risk of bias. Meta-regressions revealed no significant moderators (stage, time since diagnosis, gender and age). This review provides a theoretically aligned evidence base for associations between ACT processes and distress in cancer, supporting elements of ACT theory and providing targeted directions for intervention development. Due to limited evidence, future research should focus on self-as-context, values and committed action and conduct mediation analysis in controlled trials of ACT processes on distress in cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"456-477"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11332408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2023.2261518","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Around 42% of individuals with cancer experience distress. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) can reduce distress, but effects are small, and mechanisms unclear. This review aimed to identify associations between ACT processes and distress in cancer. Search terms included cancer, ACT processes, self-compassion, and distress. Six online databases and grey literature were searched until March 2022. Of 6555 papers screened, 108 studies were included with 17,195 participants. Five meta-analyses of 77 studies were conducted. Random effects meta-analyses of correlations revealed higher scores on flexible processes (acceptance, present moment awareness, self-compassion) were associated with lower distress (rpooled = -0.24, -0.39, -0.48, respectively); whilst higher scores on inflexible processes (experiential avoidance, cognitive fusion) were associated with higher distress (rpooled = 0.58, 0.57, respectively). Meta-analyses displayed moderate-to-high heterogeneity with most studies assessed as low risk of bias. Meta-regressions revealed no significant moderators (stage, time since diagnosis, gender and age). This review provides a theoretically aligned evidence base for associations between ACT processes and distress in cancer, supporting elements of ACT theory and providing targeted directions for intervention development. Due to limited evidence, future research should focus on self-as-context, values and committed action and conduct mediation analysis in controlled trials of ACT processes on distress in cancer.

癌症接受和承诺治疗过程及其与痛苦的关系:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
大约42%的癌症患者经历了痛苦。接受和承诺疗法(ACT)可以减少痛苦,但效果很小,机制也不清楚。这篇综述旨在确定癌症ACT过程和痛苦之间的关系。搜索词包括癌症、ACT过程、自我同情和痛苦。搜索了六个在线数据库和灰色文献,直到2022年3月。在筛选的6555篇论文中,108项研究被纳入,17195名参与者。对77项研究进行了5项荟萃分析。相关性的随机效应荟萃分析显示,在灵活的过程(接受、当下意识、自我同情)上得分越高,痛苦越低(rpoled = -0.24,-0.39,-0.48);而在不灵活的过程(经验回避、认知融合)上得分越高,痛苦程度越高(rpoold = 分别为0.58、0.57)。荟萃分析显示中度至高度异质性,大多数研究被评估为低偏倚风险。荟萃回归显示没有显著的调节因素(阶段、诊断后的时间、性别和年龄)。这篇综述为癌症ACT过程与痛苦之间的关联提供了理论上一致的证据基础,支持ACT理论的要素,并为干预发展提供了有针对性的方向。由于证据有限,未来的研究应侧重于自我情境、价值观和承诺行动,并在癌症痛苦ACT过程的对照试验中进行中介分析。
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
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
×
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