Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41143590›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2025

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for people living with motor neuron disease: the COMMEND feasibility study and randomised controlled trial.

Rebecca L Gould, Benjamin J Thompson, Charlotte V Rawlinson, Matt Bursnall, Mike Bradburn, Anju D Keetharuth, Tracey Young, Vanessa Lawrence, David A White, Robert J Howard and 15 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

25 authors.

Rebecca L GouldDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9283-1626
Benjamin J ThompsonClinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5516-8797
Charlotte V RawlinsonDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0000-2042-0203
Matt BursnallClinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6519-3558
Mike BradburnClinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3783-9761
Anju D KeetharuthSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8889-6806
Tracey YoungSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8467-0471
Vanessa LawrenceDepartment of Health Services & Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7852-2018
David A WhiteClinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2871-7946
Robert J HowardDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3071-2338
Marc A SerfatyDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8388-0776
Lance M McCrackenDepartment of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9734-0153
Christopher D GrahamDepartment of Psychological Sciences & Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8456-9154
Ammar Al-ChalabiMaurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience Institute, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4924-7712
Laura H GoldsteinDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9387-3035
Dynameni Androulaki-KorakiDepartment of Health Services & Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0005-2255-1166
Pavithra KumarClinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0009-0000-9649-9296
Kirsty WeeksDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0006-5206-266X
Rebecca Gossage-WorrallClinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1435-9474
Emily J TurtonClinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5763-9604
Simon WaterhouseClinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6303-9610
Nicola DrewryPatient and Public Involvement representative.ORCID 0009-0000-6177-0285
Cindy CooperClinical Trials Research Unit, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2995-5447
Pamela J ShawSheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, and the NIHR Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8925-2567
Christopher J McDermottSheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, and the NIHR Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8598-7454

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Motor neuron disease is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease for which there is no cure. Formal psychological therapies are not routinely part of United Kingdom standard motor neuron disease care due to a lack of evidence-based guidance resulting from a paucity of clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy plus usual care compared to usual care alone for improving psychological health in people living with motor neuron disease. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with 15 people living with motor neuron disease, 10 caregivers and 12 healthcare professionals. Findings were used to develop an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy intervention specifically for people living with motor neuron disease. Next, we examined its acceptability and feasibility in an uncontrolled feasibility study with 29 people living with motor neuron disease. Findings from qualitative interviews with 14 people living with motor neuron disease and 11 therapists were used to revise the intervention. Finally, we conducted a multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in 16 United Kingdom motor neuron disease care centres/clinics. Eligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years with motor neuron disease. Participants were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive up to eight sessions of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy plus usual care or usual care alone and followed up at 6 and 9 months post randomisation by blinded outcome assessors. The primary outcome was total score on the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included health status using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. Primary analyses were by intention to treat. Results: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy was acceptable to people living with motor neuron disease, and it was feasible to recruit participants, hence trial progression criteria were met. From September 2019 to August 2022, 191 participants were recruited: 97 were allocated to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy plus usual care and 94 to usual care alone. Mean age was 61.9 years (standard deviation 11.4), 58% were male and 95% were White/White British. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy plus usual care was superior to usual care alone on the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised at 6 months [adjusted mean difference 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.22 to 1.10); Cohen's Conclusion: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy plus usual care is clinically effective at maintaining or improving psychological health, as measured by the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised, in people living with motor neuron disease compared to usual care alone. It was not cost-effective overall when calculated using a standard health status measure (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version). However, it was cost-effective in a subgroup of people experiencing a medium rate of disease-related deterioration. Limitations: Participants from ethnic minorities were under-represented, despite recruiting from sites with diverse communities. Between-group differences in outcomes may have been partly attributable to expectancy or non-specific therapeutic effects due to the lack of an active control. Cost-effectiveness analyses may have been underpowered to detect significant between-group differences. Future work: Studies should examine the effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in diverse populations, compared to an active control, using a more appropriate measure to assess cost-effectiveness, and in those with different rates of disease-related deterioration. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/81/01.

Indexed as

Acceptance and Commitment TherapyMotor Neuron DiseaseAdultAgedCaregiversCost-Benefit AnalysisFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalUnited KingdomACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT THERAPYFEASIBILITY STUDIESMOTOR NEURON DISEASEQUALITY OF LIFERANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALTREATMENT OUTCOME

Identifiers

PMID41143590
PMCPMC12666599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.