An analysis of the studies which have been conducted with a new, increasingly popular, form of psychotherapy (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) is raising doubts on the specificity of the strategy. The study has been published by a group of Dutch investigators headed by Prof. Emmelkamp in the current issue of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.
There are now a substantial number of controlled trials investigating the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). This meta-analysis combined multiple well-controlled studies to help clarify the overall impact of ACT relative to waiting lists, psychological placebos, treatment as usual, and established therapies. A comprehensive literature search produced 18 randomized controlled trials (n = 917) that were included in the final analyses. Effect size was computed with Hedges’s g which can be interpreted with Cohen’s convention of small (0.2), medium (0.5), and large (0.8) effects. There was a clear overall advantage of ACT compared to control conditions (effect size = 0.42). The average ACT-treated participant was more improved than 66% of the participants in the control conditions. Analyzed separately ACT was superior to waiting lists and psychological placebos (effect size = 0.68) and treatment as usual (effect size = 0.42). However, ACT was not significantly more effective than established treatments (effect size = 0.18, p = 0.13). Also, ACT was not superior to control conditions for the distress problems (anxiety/depression: effect size = 0.03, p = 0.84). The results reveal that ACT is more effective than control conditions for several problem domains, but there is no evidence yet that ACT is more effective than established treatments.
Source:Full bibliographic information: Powers, M.B.; Zum Vörde Sive Vörding, M.B.; Emmelkamp, P.M.G. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychother Psychosom 2009;78:73-80 via Alpha Galileo
