Examining domains of psychological flexibility and inflexibility as treatment mechanisms in acceptance and commitment therapy: A comprehensive systematic and meta-analytic review
{"title":"Examining domains of psychological flexibility and inflexibility as treatment mechanisms in acceptance and commitment therapy: A comprehensive systematic and meta-analytic review","authors":"Jenna A. Macri, Ronald D. Rogge","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The current systematic and meta-analytic review sought to integrate a growing number of studies examining dimensions of psychological flexibility as treatment mechanisms for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Analyses of 77 records (67 unique studies; N<sub>total</sub> = 9123 participants) from comprehensive searches of multiple databases suggested that ACT interventions led to reduced inflexibility (i.e., lowered global inflexibility, lack of present moment awareness, cognitive fusion, experiential avoidance, self-as-content, & inaction) and increased flexibility (i.e., committed action/contact with values, global flexibility/acceptance, & defusion). Those changes remained significant when ACT was compared with waitlist or active treatments and were significantly linked to corresponding drops in psychological distress, supporting their roles as ACT treatment mechanisms. Moderation analyses revealed that the use of student samples, exclusion of clinically symptomatic individuals, and comparisons of ACT with other active treatments weakened these effects whereas offering ACT as an individual therapy and excluding individuals in extreme crisis (i.e., with suicidal ideation) strengthened them. The meta-analytic findings and systematic review suggested specific recommendations for future clinical work and research on ACT mechanisms: (1) Evaluate both psychological flexibility and inflexibility as distinct treatment mechanisms, (2) Evaluate specific dimensions of psychological flexibility/inflexibility as mechanisms with multidimensional scales (CompACT, MPFI), (3) Broaden treatment outcomes to include forms of wellbeing (peace of mind, vitality, connectedness), (4) Assess mechanisms and outcomes repeatedly throughout treatment to model the process of therapeutic change, (5) Investigate non-specific factors (therapeutic alliance, treatment adherence) as mechanisms, and (6) Explore treatment mechanisms in effectiveness studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 102432"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000539","RegionNum":1,"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
The current systematic and meta-analytic review sought to integrate a growing number of studies examining dimensions of psychological flexibility as treatment mechanisms for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Analyses of 77 records (67 unique studies; Ntotal = 9123 participants) from comprehensive searches of multiple databases suggested that ACT interventions led to reduced inflexibility (i.e., lowered global inflexibility, lack of present moment awareness, cognitive fusion, experiential avoidance, self-as-content, & inaction) and increased flexibility (i.e., committed action/contact with values, global flexibility/acceptance, & defusion). Those changes remained significant when ACT was compared with waitlist or active treatments and were significantly linked to corresponding drops in psychological distress, supporting their roles as ACT treatment mechanisms. Moderation analyses revealed that the use of student samples, exclusion of clinically symptomatic individuals, and comparisons of ACT with other active treatments weakened these effects whereas offering ACT as an individual therapy and excluding individuals in extreme crisis (i.e., with suicidal ideation) strengthened them. The meta-analytic findings and systematic review suggested specific recommendations for future clinical work and research on ACT mechanisms: (1) Evaluate both psychological flexibility and inflexibility as distinct treatment mechanisms, (2) Evaluate specific dimensions of psychological flexibility/inflexibility as mechanisms with multidimensional scales (CompACT, MPFI), (3) Broaden treatment outcomes to include forms of wellbeing (peace of mind, vitality, connectedness), (4) Assess mechanisms and outcomes repeatedly throughout treatment to model the process of therapeutic change, (5) Investigate non-specific factors (therapeutic alliance, treatment adherence) as mechanisms, and (6) Explore treatment mechanisms in effectiveness studies.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.