Technology-supported Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for chronic health conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2022, Herbert et al

Highlights

• Technology-supported ACT outperformed comparison groups on function and ACT outcomes.
• Technology modality and therapist contact moderated effects.
• Recommendations provided to optimize technology-supported ACT.

Abstract

Chronic health conditions (CHCs) are common and associated with functional limitations. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) shows promise in improving functioning, quality of life, and distress across several CHCs. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of technology-supported ACT for CHCs and perform a meta-analysis on functioning and ACT process outcomes. Multiple databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials. A total of 20 unique studies with 2,430 randomized participants were included. CHCs addressed in these studies were chronic pain (k = 9), obesity/overweight (k = 4), cancer (k = 3), hearing loss (k = 1), HIV (k = 1), multiple sclerosis (k = 1), and tinnitus (k = 1). Internet and telephone were the most used technology platforms. All studies included therapist contact with considerable heterogeneity between studies. Random effects meta-analyses found medium effect sizes showing technology-supported ACT outperformed comparator groups on measures of function at post-treatment (Hedges' g = −0.49; p = 0.002) and follow-up (Hedges' g = −0.52; p = 0.02), as well as ACT process outcomes at post-treatment (Hedges' g = 0.48; p < 0.001) and follow-up (Hedges’ g = 0.44; p < 0.001). Technology-supported ACT shows promise for improving function and ACT process outcomes across a range of CHCs. Recommendations are provided to optimize technology-supported ACT for CHCs.

Paywall, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005796721001947

 

No one in real life can bullshit for decades about something "showing promise". Especially not something that's widely used already, because it's so trivial and useless that there are no restrictions or limitations to use it, regardless of evidence.

The whole Theranos scam sprung up and could have collapsed twice over in the time it took to do the same with CBT. The difference is that investors, even in risky ventures, have far more protections than patients do against runaway pseudoscience. Because they can enforce their rights. With expensive attorneys.

It's accepting absurd standards like this that ruined medicine. "Showing promise" is simply not a valid scientific or clinical concept, it is entirely in the mind of the people writing and saying that, confirmed by years of attempts to sell it as more than that, while admitting at the same time that at best those pseudoscientific treatments "show promise".

I guess we'll be seeing a few years shifting everything from CBT to ACT, applying the same formula. Even though the literal basis of widespread belief in medicine that chronic illness is mostly psychological comes from claims about the efficacy of CBT.

I assume that randomized trials will be cool for a while again, while this latest re-mastering of the original recording resets the needle to something "new", while, I'm sure, also saying this new approach is promising because CBT showed so much promise for so long so clearly it was just a matter of figuring out how to dot the i's and cross the t's properly.