ArticleGlobal mental health (Cambridge, England)2022
ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors (ENACT) tool: adaptation and psychometric properties in South Africa.
Article in Global mental health (Cambridge, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary effectiveness of the youth empowerment digital intervention (YEDI): A pilot clustered community study of a group cognitive behavioral therapy intervention with digital reinforcement among youth in Kenya's informal settlements.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
- Supporting the mental health of adolescent mothers in Kenya and Mozambique: pilot protocol for the Thriving Mamas programme.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Core Competencies for Psychological Counselors: A Scoping Review.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Piloting Siyakhana: A community health worker training to reduce substance use and depression stigma in South African HIV and TB care.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors (ENACT) tool measures a set of therapeutic competencies required for the effective psychological intervention, including delivery by non-specialists. This paper describes the systematic adaptation of the ENACT for the South African (SA) context and presents the tool's initial psychometric properties. Methods: We employed a four-step process: (1) Item generation: 204 therapeutic factors were generated by SA psychologists and drawn from the original ENACT as potential items; (2) Item relevance: SA therapists identified 96 items that were thematically coded according to their relationship to one another and were assigned to six domains; (3) Item utility: The ENACT-SA scale was piloted by rating recordings of psychological therapy sessions and stakeholder input; and (4) Psychometric properties: Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the final 12-item ENACT-SA were explored using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation co-efficient (ICC) for both clinical psychologists and registered counsellors. Results: Although the original ENACT provided a framework for developing a tool for use in SA, several modifications were made to improve the applicability of the tool for the SA context, and optimise its adaptability other contexts. The adapted 12-item tool's internal consistency was good, while the inter-rater reliability was acceptable for both clinical psychologists and registered counsellors. Conclusion: The ENACT-SA is a reliable tool to assess common factors in psychological treatments. It is recommended that the tool be used in conjunction with assessment protocols and treatment-specific competency measures to fully assess implementation fidelity and potential mechanisms of therapeutic change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.