A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Clinically Relevant Mental and Physical Health Problems
A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Clinically Relevant Mental and Physical Health Problems
复制标题
DOI：
10.1159/000365764
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-01
影响因子：
22.8
通讯作者：
Emmelkamp, Paul M. G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A-Tjak, Jacqueline G. L.;Davis, Michelle L.;Emmelkamp, Paul M. G.
背景资料：目前的研究介绍了39项关于接受和承诺疗法（ACT）疗效的随机对照试验的荟萃分析结果，其中包括1，821名患有精神障碍或躯体健康问题的患者。方法：检索PsycINFO、MEDLINE和科克伦对照试验中心数据库。ACBS（情境行为科学协会）社区提供的信息也包括在内。使用综合荟萃分析软件进行统计学计算。使用方法学评分表对研究质量进行评分。结果如下：在主要结局的完成者和意向治疗分析中，ACT在治疗后和随访评估时优于对照组（Hedges g = 0.57）。ACT的上级效果优于等待名单（Hedges g = 0.82）、心理安慰剂（Hedges g = 0.51）和常规治疗（TAU）（我们将TAU定义为常规标准治疗; Hedges g = 0.64）。ACT在次要结局（Hedges' g = 0.30）、生活满意度/质量测量（Hedges' g = 0.37）和过程测量（Hedges' g = 0.37）方面也具有上级优势。56)与对照条件相比。ACT和已建立的治疗（认知行为疗法）之间的比较未显示这些治疗之间的任何显著差异（p = 0.140）。结论：我们的研究结果表明，ACT比常规治疗或安慰剂更有效，ACT在治疗焦虑症、抑郁症、成瘾和躯体健康问题方面可能与既定的心理干预措施一样有效。需要更多的研究，重点是生活质量和变化的过程，以了解ACT的附加值及其transdiagnosis性质。(C)2014 S. Karger AG，巴塞尔
Background: The current study presents the results of a meta-analysis of 39 randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), including 1,821 patients with mental disorders or somatic health problems. Methods: We searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Information provided by the ACBS (Association of Contextual Behavioral Science) community was also included. Statistical calculations were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Study quality was rated using a methodology rating form. Results: ACT outperformed control conditions (Hedges' g = 0.57) at posttreatment and follow-up assessments in completer and intent-to-treat analyses for primary outcomes. ACT was superior to waitlist (Hedges' g = 0.82), to psychological placebo (Hedges' g = 0.51) and to treatment as usual (TAU) (we defined TAU as the standard treatment as usual; Hedges' g = 0.64). ACT was also superior on secondary outcomes (Hedges' g = 0.30), life satisfaction/quality measures (Hedges' g = 0.37) and process measures (Hedges' g = 0. 56) compared to control conditions. The comparison between ACT and established treatments (cognitive behavioral therapy) did not reveal any significant differences between these treatments (p = 0.140). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that ACT is more effective than treatment as usual or placebo and that ACT may be as effective in treating anxiety disorders, depression, addiction, and somatic health problems as established psychological interventions. More research that focuses on quality of life and processes of change is needed to understand the added value of ACT and its transdiagnostic nature. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel