School of Nursing

Permanent URI for this community

https://hdl.handle.net/1805/3858

Browse

Browsing School of Nursing by Subject "Acceptance and commitment therapy"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Acceptance and commitment therapy for breast cancer survivors with fear of cancer recurrence: A 3-arm pilot randomized controlled trial
    (Wiley, 2020) Johns, Shelley A.; Stutz, Patrick V.; Talib, Tasneem; Cohee, Andrea A.; Beck-Coon, Kathleen A.; Brown, Linda F.; Wilhelm, Laura R.; Monaham, Patrick O.; LaPradd, Michelle L.; Champion, Victoria L.; Miller, Kathy D.; Giesler, R. Brian
    Background Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) has a profound negative impact on quality of life (QOL) for many cancer survivors. Breast cancer survivors (BCS) are particularly vulnerable, with up to 70% reporting clinically significant FCR. To the authors' knowledge, evidence-based interventions for managing FCR are limited. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) promotes psychological flexibility in managing life's stressors. The current study examined the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of group-based ACT for FCR in BCS. Methods Post-treatment BCS (91 patients with stage I-III disease) with clinical FCR randomly were assigned to ACT (6 weekly 2-hour group sessions), survivorship education (SE; 6 weekly 2-hour group sessions), or enhanced usual care (EUC; one 30-minute group coaching session with survivorship readings). FCR severity (primary outcome) and avoidant coping, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, depression, QOL, and other FCR-related variables (secondary outcomes) were assessed at baseline (T1), after the intervention (T2), 1 month after the intervention (T3), and 6 months after the intervention (T4) using intent-to-treat analysis. Results Satisfactory recruitment (43.8%) and retention (94.5%) rates demonstrated feasibility. Although each arm demonstrated within-group reductions in FCR severity over time, only ACT produced significant reductions at each time point compared with baseline, with between-group differences at T4 substantially favoring ACT over SE (Cohen d for effect sizes, 0.80; P < .001) and EUC (Cohen d, 0.61; P < .01). For 10 of 12 secondary outcomes, only ACT produced significant within-group reductions across all time points. By T4, significant moderate to large between-group comparisons favored ACT over SE and EUC with regard to avoidant coping, anxiety, depression, QOL, and FCR-related psychological distress. Conclusions Group-based ACT is a feasible and promising treatment for FCR and associated outcomes in BCS that warrants testing in larger, fully powered trials.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Breast cancer survivors’ perceptions of their partners’ interest in cancer-focused psychosocial interventions
    (LWW, 2021) Cohee, Andrea A.; Krueger, Ellen F.; Vachon, Eric A.; Cottingham, Ann H.; Stutz, Patrick V.; Alwine, Jennifer S.; Johns, Shelley A.
    Background: Despite that partners of breast cancer survivors (BCS) often experience long-term consequences from the cancer experience, including fear of recurrence and depression, there are rarely psychosocial interventions aimed at mitigating these consequences. Because partners are usually recruited to research studies through BCS, it is important to understand the views of BCS regarding their partners’ involvement in interventions. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of BCS regarding the advisability of offering a psychosocial intervention to their partners. Methods: BCS (N = 22) enrolled in 1 of 3 interventions (acceptance and commitment therapy [ACT], survivorship education [SE], or enhanced usual care [EUC]) were queried about whether they believed their partner would be interested in a psychosocial intervention similar to what they had just completed and asked to provide their opinions about how a partner intervention should be structured and what it should address. Twenty-two BCS (ACT group [n = 5], SE [n = 11], and EUC [n = 6]) completed the interviews. Results: The participants identified 3 unmet partner needs that they thought could be addressed by a psychosocial intervention: problems with coping, communication breakdowns, and lack of information. They also provided 3 recommendations regarding the development of a partner intervention: the use of a group format, the provision of separate sessions for partners and BCS, and the inclusion of intervention components that provide practical or factual information related to breast cancer. Conclusions: BCS can provide valuable insights that can inform the development of psychosocial interventions for partners of survivors. The development of such partner interventions is critical to address the negative and often hidden health and social effects experienced by partners of BCS.