4.1 Article

Feasibility and acceptability of an online acceptance and commitment therapy group for parents caring for a child with cerebral palsy

期刊

JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 1338-1354

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13229400.2020.1822198

关键词

Acceptance and commitment therapy; online group intervention; parents; cerebral palsy; psychological

资金

  1. Scobie & Claire Mackinnon Trust
  2. Royal Children's Hospital Foundation
  3. Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored the feasibility and acceptability of a videoconferencing group psychotherapy intervention for parents of children living with cerebral palsy. The findings suggest that the intervention had significant effects on reducing guilt and worry, and increasing mindfulness, which were supported by parents' qualitative responses.
This study explored the feasibility and acceptability of a videoconferencing group psychotherapy intervention for parents of children living with cerebral palsy. A six-session Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention called Take a Breath was provided. Participants were 26 parents of children aged 12 months to nine years, with severe cerebral palsy. Parents responded to questionnaires at three time-points; baseline, pre-intervention, and post-intervention. Qualitative responses were recorded in response to a structured item asking about benefits of participating in the intervention. Of those enrolled, 90% of parents attended the minimum required sessions and 35% attended all six sessions. Quantitative results revealed significant reductions in guilt and worry, and increased mindfulness, which echoed parents' qualitative responses. The pilot findings suggest the Take a Breath intervention is a feasible and acceptable approach to providing mental health services to parents who face significant daily challenges and barriers to engaging support. Larger scale studies are warranted.

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

4.1
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