4.3 Article

Pilot Evaluation of a Resilience Training Program for People With Multiple Sclerosis

Journal

REHABILITATION PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 63, Issue 1, Pages 29-42

Publisher

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/rep0000167

Keywords

acceptance and commitment therapy; mindfulness; multiple sclerosis; quality of life; resilience

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and psychosocial outcomes of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)-based group resilience training program for people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Research Method/Design: The study used a pre-post group intervention design with 3-month follow-up. The intervention consisted of 8 group sessions of 2.5 hours each with 7 weekly sessions plus a booster Session 5 weeks later. Thirty-seven PwMS completed questionnaires. Primary psychosocial outcomes were resilience, quality of life (QoL), and distress. Secondary outcomes were the ACT processes: mindfulness, defusion, values and acceptance. Results: Significant improvements were observed for resilience (p = .005; Hedge's g = .47), physical health QoL (p = .001; g = -.76), mental health QoL (p = .006; g = -.46), depression (p = .009; g = -.38), stress (p = .025; g = .33), and 3 ACT processes: defusion (p = .013; g = -.54), values (p = .010; g = -.38), and acceptance (p = .006; g = -.39). Values and defusion emerged as mediators of physical health QoL and stress (90% CI), respectively. Program feasibility was supported by positive participant feedback; high rates of recruitment, attendance, retention, and homework engagement; and good intervention fidelity. Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary support for the utility and feasibility of a community organization delivered ACT-based group resilience training program for improving resilience, QoL, depression, stress, and protective factors (defusion, values, acceptance) in PwMS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available