在成人临床人群中使用接纳与承诺疗法的单例实验设计的系统性质量回顾

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Safia A.M. Luck, Nima Golijani-Moghaddam, David L. Dawson
{"title":"在成人临床人群中使用接纳与承诺疗法的单例实验设计的系统性质量回顾","authors":"Safia A.M. Luck,&nbsp;Nima Golijani-Moghaddam,&nbsp;David L. Dawson","doi":"10.1016/j.beth.2024.01.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recent publications within <em>Contextual Behavioral Science</em> provided a rationale for the expansion of intervention efficacy research using methods that capture idiographic factors and processes. We conducted a systematic review of the use and quality of single-case experimental designs (SCED) within the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) literature in adult clinical populations. The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and OpenGrey were searched for peer-reviewed articles. Further studies were sought through review of reference lists of all full text studies. Studies were assessed against What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) single-case design standards. Twenty-six studies met eligibility criteria and were conducted within research teams all implementing multiple-baseline designs. Twenty-four studies did not meet WWC standards with most failing to ensure a degree of concurrence across participants. The extent of randomisation methods was also captured. The review highlights the sparsity of SCEDs within ACT literature in clinical populations and current methodological practices. Limitations of the review and implications for future research are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48359,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789424000194/pdfft?md5=75b4a4099e8f3b1a8eb458e758785522&pid=1-s2.0-S0005789424000194-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Quality Review of Single-Case Experimental Designs Using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in Adult Clinical Populations\",\"authors\":\"Safia A.M. Luck,&nbsp;Nima Golijani-Moghaddam,&nbsp;David L. Dawson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.beth.2024.01.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Recent publications within <em>Contextual Behavioral Science</em> provided a rationale for the expansion of intervention efficacy research using methods that capture idiographic factors and processes. We conducted a systematic review of the use and quality of single-case experimental designs (SCED) within the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) literature in adult clinical populations. The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and OpenGrey were searched for peer-reviewed articles. Further studies were sought through review of reference lists of all full text studies. Studies were assessed against What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) single-case design standards. Twenty-six studies met eligibility criteria and were conducted within research teams all implementing multiple-baseline designs. Twenty-four studies did not meet WWC standards with most failing to ensure a degree of concurrence across participants. The extent of randomisation methods was also captured. The review highlights the sparsity of SCEDs within ACT literature in clinical populations and current methodological practices. Limitations of the review and implications for future research are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789424000194/pdfft?md5=75b4a4099e8f3b1a8eb458e758785522&pid=1-s2.0-S0005789424000194-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789424000194\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789424000194","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近在《情境行为科学》(Contextual Behavioral Science)杂志上发表的文章为扩大干预效果研究提供了理论依据,这些研究采用的方法能够捕捉到特异性因素和过程。我们对接受与承诺疗法(ACT)文献中单例实验设计(SCED)在成人临床人群中的使用情况和质量进行了系统性回顾。该系统性综述根据 PRISMA 指南进行,并在 CINAHL、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、PsycArticles 和 OpenGrey 等数据库中检索了同行评审文章。通过审查所有全文研究的参考文献目录,寻找更多的研究。根据 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 单例设计标准对研究进行了评估。符合资格标准的研究有 26 项,这些研究都是在研究小组内进行的,均采用了多基线设计。有 24 项研究不符合 WWC 标准,其中大部分未能确保参与者之间的一致性。随机化方法的程度也被记录在案。综述强调了在临床人群和当前方法实践中的 ACT 文献中 SCED 的稀缺性。此外,还讨论了综述的局限性以及对未来研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Systematic Quality Review of Single-Case Experimental Designs Using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in Adult Clinical Populations

Recent publications within Contextual Behavioral Science provided a rationale for the expansion of intervention efficacy research using methods that capture idiographic factors and processes. We conducted a systematic review of the use and quality of single-case experimental designs (SCED) within the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) literature in adult clinical populations. The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and OpenGrey were searched for peer-reviewed articles. Further studies were sought through review of reference lists of all full text studies. Studies were assessed against What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) single-case design standards. Twenty-six studies met eligibility criteria and were conducted within research teams all implementing multiple-baseline designs. Twenty-four studies did not meet WWC standards with most failing to ensure a degree of concurrence across participants. The extent of randomisation methods was also captured. The review highlights the sparsity of SCEDs within ACT literature in clinical populations and current methodological practices. Limitations of the review and implications for future research are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Behavior Therapy
Behavior Therapy Multiple-
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
2.70%
发文量
113
审稿时长
121 days
期刊介绍: Behavior Therapy is a quarterly international journal devoted to the application of the behavioral and cognitive sciences to the conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of psychopathology and related clinical problems. It is intended for mental health professionals and students from all related disciplines who wish to remain current in these areas and provides a vehicle for scientist-practitioners and clinical scientists to report the results of their original empirical research. Although the major emphasis is placed upon empirical research, methodological and theoretical papers as well as evaluative reviews of the literature will also be published. Controlled single-case designs and clinical replication series are welcome.
×
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