ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2025
The acceptability of compassion-focused therapy in clinical populations: a metasynthesis of the qualitative literature.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Use and Outcomes of Compassion-Focused Group Interventions With Children and Adolescent Clinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyPooled it
- Compassion-Focused Therapy for Mothers of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Impact on Parental Burnout, Self-Criticism, and Psychological Distress.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Assessing the effects of group perinatal compassion focused therapy in a National Health Service Talking Therapies service in England.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Perinatal compassion focused therapy for mothers with mental health difficulties: a study protocol for a multisite and mixed methods feasibility and acceptability study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Compassion-focused therapy (CFT) is a psychological intervention that is increasingly used in UK NHS services, either in an individual or a group format, with individuals experiencing psychological difficulties. Reviews of the quantitative evidence suggest that CFT effectively improves psychological well-being in various clinical groups. Participant experiences of group CFT in those with psychological difficulties have also been explored in several published qualitative and mixed-methods studies. Thus, the aim of this review was to further our understanding of the acceptability of group CFT, in relation to both the content of the intervention and its delivery, in order to help inform the future design and delivery of CFT in clinical services. Method: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, eight relevant databases were searched for terms associated with CFT and qualitative research. The methodological quality of included studies was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) screening tool. Findings were synthesised using thematic synthesis. Results: Twelve studies involving 106 participants with psychological difficulties met inclusion criteria. Five main themes were developed from the extracted data: 1) participants' experiences prior to the intervention, 2) initial response to the idea of participation, 3) participants' experiences of the intervention: aspects valued or considered beneficial, 4) valued outcomes of the intervention, and 5) the end of the intervention and moving forward. Conclusions: Findings indicated a high level of acceptability of group CFT and commonality of experiences across participants despite different clinical presentations. The crucial role played by facilitators and other group members to participant engagement and outcomes was highlighted, among other factors. Clinical and research implications of these findings are discussed.
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.