Evaluating an interactive acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) workshop delivered to trained therapists working with cancer patients in the United Kingdom: a mixed methods approach

on behalf of the SURECAN Grant Investigators

doi:10.1186/s12885-022-09745-4

Evaluating an interactive acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) workshop delivered to trained therapists working with cancer patients in the United Kingdom: a mixed methods approach

on behalf of the SURECAN Grant Investigators

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: SURECAN (SUrvivors’ Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer) is a multi-phase study developing and evaluating an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention integrated with exercise and work when highly valued (thus we called the intervention ACT+), for people who have completed treatment for cancer but who have low quality of life. We developed a training programme for therapists working in different psychological services to be delivered over 2–3 days. Our aim was to evaluate the extent to which the training could improve therapists’ knowledge and confidence to deliver ACT+ to cancer patients in a trial setting. Methods: Three interactive workshops were delivered to 29 therapists from three clinical settings in London and in Sheffield. A mixed-methods approach was used. Questionnaires were designed to assess knowledge and confidence in using ACT+ with people who have low quality of life after cancer treatment. They were self-administered immediately prior to and after each workshop. Open text-based questions were used to elicit feedback about the workshops alongside a satisfaction scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of therapists (n = 12) to explore their views about the training more deeply, and how it might be optimised. Results: Quantitative analysis showed that knowledge of ACT, as well as confidence in using the ACT+ intervention in this setting increased significantly after training (28.6 and 33.5% increase in the median score respectively). Qualitative analysis indicated that most therapists were satisfied with the content and structure of the programme, valued the rich resources provided and enjoyed the practice-based approach. Potential barriers/facilitators to participation in the trial and to the successful implementation of ACT+ were identified. For some therapists, delivering a manualised intervention, as well as supporting exercise- and work-related goals as non-specialists was seen as challenging. At the same time, therapists valued the opportunity to be involved in research, whilst training in a new therapy model. Conclusions: Training can effectively improve the knowledge and confidence of therapists from different clinical backgrounds to deliver a modified ACT intervention to cancer patients in a trial setting.

Original language	English
Article number	651
Journal	BMC Cancer
Volume	22
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09745-4
Publication status	Published - Dec 2022

Keywords

Acceptance and commitment therapy
cancer
Education
Quality of life
Training

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1186/s12885-022-09745-4

Cite this

@article{fea8e3320e6a4b28ab66b7135a58c55c,

title = "Evaluating an interactive acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) workshop delivered to trained therapists working with cancer patients in the United Kingdom: a mixed methods approach",

abstract = "Background: SURECAN (SUrvivors{\textquoteright} Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer) is a multi-phase study developing and evaluating an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention integrated with exercise and work when highly valued (thus we called the intervention ACT+), for people who have completed treatment for cancer but who have low quality of life. We developed a training programme for therapists working in different psychological services to be delivered over 2–3 days. Our aim was to evaluate the extent to which the training could improve therapists{\textquoteright} knowledge and confidence to deliver ACT+ to cancer patients in a trial setting. Methods: Three interactive workshops were delivered to 29 therapists from three clinical settings in London and in Sheffield. A mixed-methods approach was used. Questionnaires were designed to assess knowledge and confidence in using ACT+ with people who have low quality of life after cancer treatment. They were self-administered immediately prior to and after each workshop. Open text-based questions were used to elicit feedback about the workshops alongside a satisfaction scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of therapists (n = 12) to explore their views about the training more deeply, and how it might be optimised. Results: Quantitative analysis showed that knowledge of ACT, as well as confidence in using the ACT+ intervention in this setting increased significantly after training (28.6 and 33.5% increase in the median score respectively). Qualitative analysis indicated that most therapists were satisfied with the content and structure of the programme, valued the rich resources provided and enjoyed the practice-based approach. Potential barriers/facilitators to participation in the trial and to the successful implementation of ACT+ were identified. For some therapists, delivering a manualised intervention, as well as supporting exercise- and work-related goals as non-specialists was seen as challenging. At the same time, therapists valued the opportunity to be involved in research, whilst training in a new therapy model. Conclusions: Training can effectively improve the knowledge and confidence of therapists from different clinical backgrounds to deliver a modified ACT intervention to cancer patients in a trial setting.",

keywords = "Acceptance and commitment therapy, cancer, Education, Quality of life, Training",

author = "{on behalf of the SURECAN Grant Investigators} and Elisavet Moschopoulou and Debbie Brewin and Damien Ridge and Sheila Donovan and Taylor, {Stephanie J.C.} and Liam Bourke and Gail Eva and Imran Khan and Trudie Chalder and Kamaldeep Bhui and Trudie Chalder and John Gribben and Harris, {Ms Miriam} and Louise Jones and Ania Korszun and Paul Little and Paul McCrone and Adrienne Morgan and Rebecca Roylance and Mohamed Thaha and Peter White",

note = "Funding Information: SURECAN Grant Investigators (in alphabetic order) Professor Kamaldeep Bhui7, Professor Liam Bourke4, Professor Trudie Chalder6, Dr. Gail Eva5, Professor John Gribben8, Ms. Miriam Harris, Dr. Louise Jones9, Professor Ania Korszun1, Professor Paul Little10, Professor Paul McCrone11, Dr. Adrienne Morgan8, Professor Damien Ridge3, Dr. Rebecca Roylance12, Professor Stephanie J.C. Taylor1, Mr. Mohamed Thaha13, Professor Peter White1. 1. Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 3. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Westminster, London, UK. 4. Allied Health Professionals, Radiotherapy & Oncology, College of Health Wellbeing and Life Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK. 5. Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK. 6. Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King{\textquoteright}s College London, London, UK. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford. 8. Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London. 9. Division of Psychiatry, University College London. 10. School of Medicine, University of Southampton. 11. School of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich. 12. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. 13. Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London. Funding Information: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Reference Number RP-PG-0616-20002). SJCT is supported by the National Institute for Health Research ARC North Thames. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health. Trudie Chalder acknowledges the financial support of the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health award to the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) and the Institute of Psychiatry at King{\textquoteright}s College London. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s).",

year = "2022",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1186/s12885-022-09745-4",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

journal = "BMC Cancer",

issn = "1471-2407",

publisher = "BioMed Central",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating an interactive acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) workshop delivered to trained therapists working with cancer patients in the United Kingdom

T2 - a mixed methods approach

AU - on behalf of the SURECAN Grant Investigators

AU - Moschopoulou, Elisavet

AU - Brewin, Debbie

AU - Ridge, Damien

AU - Donovan, Sheila

AU - Taylor, Stephanie J.C.

AU - Bourke, Liam

AU - Eva, Gail

AU - Khan, Imran

AU - Chalder, Trudie

AU - Bhui, Kamaldeep

AU - Chalder, Trudie

AU - Gribben, John

AU - Harris, Ms Miriam

AU - Jones, Louise

AU - Korszun, Ania

AU - Little, Paul

AU - McCrone, Paul

AU - Morgan, Adrienne

AU - Roylance, Rebecca

AU - Thaha, Mohamed

AU - White, Peter

N1 - Funding Information: SURECAN Grant Investigators (in alphabetic order) Professor Kamaldeep Bhui7, Professor Liam Bourke4, Professor Trudie Chalder6, Dr. Gail Eva5, Professor John Gribben8, Ms. Miriam Harris, Dr. Louise Jones9, Professor Ania Korszun1, Professor Paul Little10, Professor Paul McCrone11, Dr. Adrienne Morgan8, Professor Damien Ridge3, Dr. Rebecca Roylance12, Professor Stephanie J.C. Taylor1, Mr. Mohamed Thaha13, Professor Peter White1. 1. Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 3. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Westminster, London, UK. 4. Allied Health Professionals, Radiotherapy & Oncology, College of Health Wellbeing and Life Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK. 5. Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK. 6. Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford. 8. Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London. 9. Division of Psychiatry, University College London. 10. School of Medicine, University of Southampton. 11. School of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich. 12. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. 13. Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London. Funding Information: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Reference Number RP-PG-0616-20002). SJCT is supported by the National Institute for Health Research ARC North Thames. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health. Trudie Chalder acknowledges the financial support of the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health award to the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) and the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).

PY - 2022/12

Y1 - 2022/12

N2 - Background: SURECAN (SUrvivors’ Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer) is a multi-phase study developing and evaluating an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention integrated with exercise and work when highly valued (thus we called the intervention ACT+), for people who have completed treatment for cancer but who have low quality of life. We developed a training programme for therapists working in different psychological services to be delivered over 2–3 days. Our aim was to evaluate the extent to which the training could improve therapists’ knowledge and confidence to deliver ACT+ to cancer patients in a trial setting. Methods: Three interactive workshops were delivered to 29 therapists from three clinical settings in London and in Sheffield. A mixed-methods approach was used. Questionnaires were designed to assess knowledge and confidence in using ACT+ with people who have low quality of life after cancer treatment. They were self-administered immediately prior to and after each workshop. Open text-based questions were used to elicit feedback about the workshops alongside a satisfaction scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of therapists (n = 12) to explore their views about the training more deeply, and how it might be optimised. Results: Quantitative analysis showed that knowledge of ACT, as well as confidence in using the ACT+ intervention in this setting increased significantly after training (28.6 and 33.5% increase in the median score respectively). Qualitative analysis indicated that most therapists were satisfied with the content and structure of the programme, valued the rich resources provided and enjoyed the practice-based approach. Potential barriers/facilitators to participation in the trial and to the successful implementation of ACT+ were identified. For some therapists, delivering a manualised intervention, as well as supporting exercise- and work-related goals as non-specialists was seen as challenging. At the same time, therapists valued the opportunity to be involved in research, whilst training in a new therapy model. Conclusions: Training can effectively improve the knowledge and confidence of therapists from different clinical backgrounds to deliver a modified ACT intervention to cancer patients in a trial setting.

AB - Background: SURECAN (SUrvivors’ Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer) is a multi-phase study developing and evaluating an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention integrated with exercise and work when highly valued (thus we called the intervention ACT+), for people who have completed treatment for cancer but who have low quality of life. We developed a training programme for therapists working in different psychological services to be delivered over 2–3 days. Our aim was to evaluate the extent to which the training could improve therapists’ knowledge and confidence to deliver ACT+ to cancer patients in a trial setting. Methods: Three interactive workshops were delivered to 29 therapists from three clinical settings in London and in Sheffield. A mixed-methods approach was used. Questionnaires were designed to assess knowledge and confidence in using ACT+ with people who have low quality of life after cancer treatment. They were self-administered immediately prior to and after each workshop. Open text-based questions were used to elicit feedback about the workshops alongside a satisfaction scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of therapists (n = 12) to explore their views about the training more deeply, and how it might be optimised. Results: Quantitative analysis showed that knowledge of ACT, as well as confidence in using the ACT+ intervention in this setting increased significantly after training (28.6 and 33.5% increase in the median score respectively). Qualitative analysis indicated that most therapists were satisfied with the content and structure of the programme, valued the rich resources provided and enjoyed the practice-based approach. Potential barriers/facilitators to participation in the trial and to the successful implementation of ACT+ were identified. For some therapists, delivering a manualised intervention, as well as supporting exercise- and work-related goals as non-specialists was seen as challenging. At the same time, therapists valued the opportunity to be involved in research, whilst training in a new therapy model. Conclusions: Training can effectively improve the knowledge and confidence of therapists from different clinical backgrounds to deliver a modified ACT intervention to cancer patients in a trial setting.

KW - Acceptance and commitment therapy

KW - cancer

KW - Education

KW - Quality of life

KW - Training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85131884349&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12885-022-09745-4

DO - 10.1186/s12885-022-09745-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 35698089

AN - SCOPUS:85131884349

SN - 1471-2407

VL - 22

JO - BMC Cancer

JF - BMC Cancer

IS - 1

M1 - 651

ER -

Evaluating an interactive acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) workshop delivered to trained therapists working with cancer patients in the United Kingdom: a mixed methods approach

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this