Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Efficacy of a Positive Affect Skills Intervention for Adults With Fibromyalgia, 2023, Ong et al.

shak8

shak8

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
by Ong, et al in Innov Aging.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10714916/pdf/igad070.pdf

Five weeks of positive affect training vs a control group of reporting emotions. 43 in each group, mostly female, older than 50, 80% white.

Internet training modules: identifying personal stress, behavorial activation to set and work toward goal attainment, mindfulness, positive reappraisal of self, gratitude, and acts of kindness.

3 more dropouts in intervention group than control.
 
Abstract

Background and Objectives:
To examine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a positive affect skills intervention for middle-aged and older adults with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).

Research Design and Methods:
Ninety-five participants with FMS aged 50 and older (94% female) were randomized to 1 of 2 conditions: (a) Lessons in Affect Regulation to Keep Stress and Pain UndeR control (LARKSPUR; n = 49) or (b) emotion reporting/control (n = 46). LARKSPUR included 5 weeks of skill training that targeted 8 skills to help foster positive affect, including (a) noticing positive events, (b) savoring positive events, (c) identifying personal strengths, (d) behavioral activation to set and work toward attainable goals, (e) mindfulness, (f) positive reappraisal, (g) gratitude, and (h) acts of kindness. Outcome data were collected via online surveys at baseline, postintervention, and 1-month follow-up.

Results:
Completion rates (88%) and satisfaction ratings (10-point scale) were high (LARKSPUR: M = 9.14, standard deviation (SD) = 1.49; control: M = 8.59, SD = 1.97). Improvements were greater in LARKSPUR participants compared with control participants on measures of positive affect (Cohen’s d = 0.19 [0.15, 0.24]), negative affect (Cohen’s d = −0.07 [−0.11, −0.02]), and pain catastrophizing (Cohen’s d = −0.14 [−0.23, −0.05]). Improvements in positive affect (Cohen’s d = 0.17 [0.13, 0.22]) and negative affect (Cohen’s d = −0.11 [−0.15, −0.06]) were maintained at 1-month follow-up. Dose–response analyses indicated that intervention engagement significantly predicted pre-to-post and post–to-follow-up reductions in pain catastrophizing.

Discussion and Implications:
The current preliminary findings add to existing literature and highlight the specific potential of internet-delivered positive affect skills programs for adults with FMS.
 
Trish said:
Abstract

Background and Objectives:
To examine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a positive affect skills intervention for middle-aged and older adults with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).

Research Design and Methods:
Ninety-five participants with FMS aged 50 and older (94% female) were randomized to 1 of 2 conditions: (a) Lessons in Affect Regulation to Keep Stress and Pain UndeR control (LARKSPUR; n = 49) or (b) emotion reporting/control (n = 46). LARKSPUR included 5 weeks of skill training that targeted 8 skills to help foster positive affect, including (a) noticing positive events, (b) savoring positive events, (c) identifying personal strengths, (d) behavioral activation to set and work toward attainable goals, (e) mindfulness, (f) positive reappraisal, (g) gratitude, and (h) acts of kindness. Outcome data were collected via online surveys at baseline, postintervention, and 1-month follow-up.

Results:
Completion rates (88%) and satisfaction ratings (10-point scale) were high (LARKSPUR: M = 9.14, standard deviation (SD) = 1.49; control: M = 8.59, SD = 1.97). Improvements were greater in LARKSPUR participants compared with control participants on measures of positive affect (Cohen’s d = 0.19 [0.15, 0.24]), negative affect (Cohen’s d = −0.07 [−0.11, −0.02]), and pain catastrophizing (Cohen’s d = −0.14 [−0.23, −0.05]). Improvements in positive affect (Cohen’s d = 0.17 [0.13, 0.22]) and negative affect (Cohen’s d = −0.11 [−0.15, −0.06]) were maintained at 1-month follow-up. Dose–response analyses indicated that intervention engagement significantly predicted pre-to-post and post–to-follow-up reductions in pain catastrophizing.

Discussion and Implications:
The current preliminary findings add to existing literature and highlight the specific potential of internet-delivered positive affect skills programs for adults with FMS.
Click to expand...

Trish said:
randomized to 1 of 2 conditions: (a) Lessons in Affect Regulation to Keep Stress and Pain UndeR control (LARKSPUR; n = 49) or (b) emotion reporting/control (n = 46
Click to expand...

So the 'control' was 'emotion reporting' which probably required people to be eg noting their emotions in order to remember them later on (given even healthy people go into a room and forget why, you'd need to be conscious of 'I'm angry' and then have to write it down).

And the apparent treatment is 'lessons' in 'affect regulation' ie apparently 'regulating or reducing ones emotions'. I suspect of the 'it didn't just happen' or 'stop noticing it' variety.

Could one conclude that a fairer and more accurate claim for their hypothesis, depending on the detail of their 'treatment' and methodology, would be: whatever it is, if you ask people to look out for it and write it down for a fortnight there will be more noted in their 'debrief' than if you ask the same people to not notice it or acknowledge it and give them lessons in how having so much of it might make them a bad or ill person by making the scales that way around to infer it (along with I suspect some sort of spiel)?

That last bit about the scales is important because it is just as easy to think of a circumstance and scales and pretend measures that would make noting more of them 'good', in fact I guess that was the 'control condition', where people were getting gold stars for each emotion they did report (well done for remembering them all).
 
From google:
Cohen suggested that d = 0.2 be considered a “small” effect size, 0.5 represents a “medium” effect size and 0.8 a “large” effect size. This means that if the difference between two groups” means is less than 0.2 standard deviations, the difference is negligible, even if it is statistically significant.
Click to expand...
So it looks like all their between group outcomes were not significant. You can see that from their graphs without any fancy stats.
They get around this by saying it's a small feasiblity study, not a test of efficacy, but if a study with over 40 participants in each group can't find any significant between group differences, you can be pretty sure there are none, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom