Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38158736›Full record

ArticleJournal of health psychology2024

A qualitative feasibility and acceptability study of an acceptance and commitment-based bibliotherapy intervention for people with cancer.

Emma Keenan, Reg Morris, Vasilis S Vasiliou, Andrew R Thompson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Emma KeenanCardiff and Vale University Health Board and Cardiff University.
Reg MorrisCardiff and Vale University Health Board and Cardiff University.ORCID 0000-0002-8250-9315
Vasilis S VasiliouCardiff and Vale University Health Board and Cardiff University.ORCID 0000-0003-3501-4093
Andrew R ThompsonCardiff and Vale University Health Board and Cardiff University.ORCID 0000-0001-6788-7222

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-directed bibliotherapy interventions can be effective means of psychological support for individuals with cancer, yet mixed findings as to the efficacy of these interventions indicate the need for further research. We investigated the experience of individuals with cancer after using a new self-help book, based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Ten participants with cancer (nine females and one male, 40-89 years old) were given access to a bibliotherapy self-help ACT-based book and participated in post-intervention semi-structured interviews. Five themes were generated from reflexive thematic analysis: (1) The value of bibliotherapy (2) Timing is important (3) Resonating with cancer experiences (4) Tools of the book (5) ACT in action. The book was found to be acceptable (self-directed, accessible, understandable content, good responsiveness to exercises) and feasible (easy to use, ACT-consistent). Although not explicitly evaluated, participants' reports indicated defusion, present moment awareness, and consideration of values, as the ACT processes that contributed to adjustment, via helping them to regain control over their lives and become more present within the moment. Findings also indicate that the intervention may be best accessed following completion of initial medical treatment.

Indexed as

Acceptance and Commitment TherapyBibliotherapyNeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedacceptabilityACTbibliotherapycancerfeasibilityprocess of changequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID38158736
PMCPMC11005316

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.