4.3 Review

Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for professional staff burnout: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of controlled trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF MENTAL HEALTH
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 452-464

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09638237.2021.2022628

关键词

Acceptance commitment therapy; ACT; burnout; review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on the findings, interventions based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) can effectively reduce staff burnout, especially in various professional groups. However, the sample sizes were small and the interventions were not clearly defined, indicating a need for further large-scale studies to validate the results.
Background Staff working in people-oriented professions are vulnerable to burnout which is negatively associated with professional well-being and service-user care. Aim To investigate if interventions based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) are effective in reducing staff burnout. Method Systematic database and reference list searches were conducted resulting in the inclusion of 14 quantitative papers. A narrative synthesis, including extraction of individual effect sizes, was performed. Results All studies were controlled trials. The settings for ACT delivery were varied across health, social care, and public services. The ACT interventions demonstrated statistically significant effects in favour of ACT on the outcome measure subscales across the majority of studies (n = 9). Thirteen studies demonstrated an effect in favour of ACT in at least one outcome measure subscale. Positive aspects of work engagement varied according to a professional role. Conclusions The findings suggest that ACT-based interventions using a wide range of formats may have the potential to decrease burnout across a range of professional groups. However, samples were small in the studies reviewed and the interventions were not always defined. Further research would benefit from larger studies, incorporating process measures, with explicit protocols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据