Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34172029›Full record

Trial reportBMC palliative care2021

Brief Engagement and Acceptance Coaching for Hospice Settings (the BEACHeS study): results from a Phase I study of acceptability and initial effectiveness in people with non-curative cancer.

Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams, Sabrina F Norwood, David Gillanders, Anne M Finucane, Juliet Spiller, Jenny Strachan, Susan Millington, Joseph Kreft, Brooke Swash

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas J Hulbert-WilliamsCentre for Contextual Behavioural Science, School of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UK. n.hulbertwilliams@chester.ac.uk.
Sabrina F NorwoodCentre for Contextual Behavioural Science, School of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
David GillandersSchool of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Anne M FinucaneSchool of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Juliet SpillerMarie Curie Hospice, Edinburgh, UK.
Jenny StrachanMarie Curie Hospice, Edinburgh, UK.
Susan Millington, Chester, UK.
Joseph KreftCentre for Contextual Behavioural Science, School of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
Brooke SwashCentre for Contextual Behavioural Science, School of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
University of Chester · GBMarie Curie Hospice · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTransitioning into palliative care is psychologically demanding for people with advanced cancer, and there is a need for acceptable and effective interventions to support this. We aimed to develop and pilot test a brief Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) based intervention to improve quality of life and distress.

methodsOur mixed-method design included: (i) quantitative effectiveness testing using Single Case Experimental Design (SCED), (ii) qualitative interviews with participants, and (iii) focus groups with hospice staff. The five-session, in-person intervention was delivered to 10 participants; five completed at least 80%.

resultsAt baseline, participants reported poor quality of life but low distress. Most experienced substantial physical health deterioration during the study. SCED analysis methods did not show conclusively significant effects, but there was some indication that outcome improvement followed changes in expected intervention processes variables. Quantitative and qualitative data together demonstrates acceptability, perceived effectiveness and safety of the intervention. Qualitative interviews and focus groups were also used to gain feedback on intervention content and to make design recommendations to maximise success of later feasibility trials.

conclusionsThis study adds to the growing evidence base for ACT in people with advanced cancer. A number of potential intervention mechanisms, for example a distress-buffering hypothesis, are raised by our data and these should be addressed in future research using randomised controlled trial designs. Our methodological recommendations-including recruiting non-cancer diagnoses, and earlier in the treatment trajectory-likely apply more broadly to the delivery of psychological intervention in the palliative care setting. This study was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (Ref: 46,033) and retrospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry (Ref: ISRCTN12084782).

Indexed as

Acceptance and Commitment TherapyHospicesMentoringNeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesHumansQuality of LifeAcceptance and commitment therapyCancerCoachingDistressHospicePalliativeQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID34172029
PMCPMC8235846
OpenAlexW3174094277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.