1 / 99

DOING ACT RESEARCH: AN INTERACTIVE PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS

DOING ACT RESEARCH: AN INTERACTIVE PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS. Jason Lillis, Ph.D. University of Nevada, Reno. My background. ACT trainer UNR Hayes lab graduate RCT on ACT for weight stigma/ weight control Project Coordinator on R01 ACT for suicidality

ciro
Download Presentation

DOING ACT RESEARCH: AN INTERACTIVE PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. DOING ACT RESEARCH: AN INTERACTIVE PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS Jason Lillis, Ph.D. University of Nevada, Reno

  2. My background • ACT trainer • UNR Hayes lab graduate • RCT on ACT for weight stigma/ weight control • Project Coordinator on R01 ACT for suicidality • Developed and tested ACT for prejudice (quasi) • Co-author/ therapist on ACT for MH stigma • Co-author on micro-component study for defusion • Co-author ACT meta-analysis

  3. Goals • Learn the ACT model of psychopathology • Understand the ACT research literature and its implications for designing research studies • Design an ACT empirical research study • Collaboration: Lab feel • Ultimately this can be whatever you want

  4. A few questions • Why are you at this conference? What matters? • With that in mind, what is of interest to you from a research perspective? • One thing you might want to get out of this workshop

  5. Creating an Agenda

  6. Background • ACT is form the BT and CBT tradition • BT built on well-developed theory • Reinforcement and punishment • Contingency management and Exposure • BT could not adequately deal with cognition • CBT was born, explicit focus on thoughts • Lead to improvements in outcomes, but also marked a shift in the scientific approach to clinical psyc

  7. FDA Science Model • As a result, also a new way of doing science • Treatment development based on empirical support as opposed to theory testing and basic science • Good science = empirical support • ABCT mission statement • Manualized Tx, well-defined disorders, outcomes, tightly controlled studies

  8. Problems with FDA Model • Assumes topographically defined “disorders” will lead to coherent, theoretically sensible entities • i.e. psychiatric symptoms lead to true diseases • DSM-V planning committee quotes • Focus on validated techniques leaves no basis for using knowledge to apply for a new problem or situation, no means to develop new techniques • Disorganization and incoherence, mass validation • Difficult to assimilate mountain of knowledge • Difficult to extrapolate and predict based on findings • Example

  9. Contextual Behavioral Science (CBS) • An alternative, the approach followed by ACT • Hey, the name of the conference! • “A principle-focused, inductive strategy of psychological system building, which emphasizes developing interventions based on theoretical models tightly linked to basic principles that are themselves constantly upgraded and evaluated.” • Hayes et al, 2008 • Look at key aspects of CBS

  10. Explicate Philosophical Assumptions • CBS built on Functional Contextualism • Goals: prediction & influence with precision & scope • Explains a lot, applies to a lot, as simple as is useful • Pragmatic truth • What works given one’s goals (no objective truth) • Science is languaging, useful or not • Focus on manipulable events • Contextual variables- e.g. not thoughts and emotions

  11. Develop Basic and Applied Theory • Basic Science: Identify manipulable factors • Develop Principles • Applied Science: Test precision and scope • Feedback between both • RFT is the basic account of language and cognition that underlies ACT theory and methods • Examples

  12. Develop a Model • Model of pathology and intervention tied to basic principles and theories • Use of middle level terms (the ones you know) • Allows for ease of understanding and use without full knowledge of the basic science • The Operating System • Established already, though revision based on data is always possible • ACT Model in figures

  13. The Primary ACT Model of Psychopathology

  14. The Primary ACT Model of Treatment Psychological Flexibility

  15. Techniques and Components • Model is the foundation on which to build techniques- grouped by process/ component • Can be created, or borrowed • Allows for analogue and component studies (small, lab-based) • Easy, feasible, contribute growing base of evidence • Enables early detection of inactivity, revisions, targeting specific theoretical questions

  16. Measuring Theoretical Processes • Process of change = VERY important • The link between theory, principles, and techniques • Measures that link a theoretical construct with the phenomena or condition (e.g. psychological flex) • Important area of research • Without, can’t theory test • CBS/ ACT frequently uses idiographic measures, and values adapted, specific, theoretically-consistent assessment over traditional validation

  17. Emphasis on Mediation • Outcome studies fit here, but… • Heavy emphasis on mediation • ACT is a model, not a set of techniques • Moving processes is the primary goal • Tests coherence and utility of model • Failure or success in outcomes is meaningless without

  18. Effectiveness, dissemination, training • Early and often • “What works” needs to also work in real settings • “What works” for training others? • “What works” in terms of acceptability? • “What works” in terms of cost-effectiveness? • Questions to ask now as opposed to later

  19. Broad Range Testing • Generalizabilty is important- search for limits • Targeting experiential avoidance should be helpful • Individual, groups, phone, internet, books, etc… • Anxiety, depression, substance use… • But maybe also health behavior change, or prejudice • And also for the individual, organization, and biology • This is the “scope” part • It is explicitly anti-syndromal thinking

  20. Highlight Differences • Components • Mediation emphasis • Scope • Creation/ use of measures • Early effectiveness/ training

  21. Components • Small scale, focused • Few resources needed, lab-based • Allows isolation of process • Test whether techniques or components are “active” • Test parameters

  22. DefusionMasuda, Hayes, Twohig, Guerrero, & Sackett, BRAT, 2004 • Generate two highly disturbing thoughts • Randomly assign them either to defusion (“milk, milk, milk”) or thought control (positive self-talk, positive thinking) • Apply in an alternating treatments format

  23. Defusion Reduces Distress and Believability Cohen’s d = 1.98 (distract) and 2.63 (control)

  24. Follow-up StudyMasuda, Hayes, Twohig, Cardinal, & Lillis (2009) BMod

  25. AcceptanceLevitt, Brown, Orsillo, & Barlow, Behavior Therapy, 2004 • 60 individuals with a primary diagnosis of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia randomly assigned to one of three groups (10 min audiotape): Acceptance, Suppression, Control (irrelevant distraction) • 15-minute 5.5% CO2 challenge (panic provocation)

  26. Anxiety During the Challenge 4 3 Cohen’s d at post = .5 (suppress) and .45 (control) 2 1 0 Accept Suppress Control

  27. Willingness to do it Again 4 Cohen’s d at post = .67 (suppress) and .81 (control) 3 2 1 0 Accept Suppress Control

  28. Mediation • “Why” the treatment worked • “Why” the treatment didn’t work • Without process/ mediation, you can’t be sure what you did, what you targeted, whether its relevant • Changes the focus from outcomes to process- allows for treatment to focus on common core processes • Broadly targeting robust processes that relate to outcomes = predict & influence w/ precision & scope

  29. Mediation Analysis Treatment Conditions Mediator Outcome

  30. Mediation Analysis ACT Intervention Acceptance Depression

  31. Mediation Analysis c’ Acceptance a b c ACT Treatment Depression

  32. ACT for Weight, Stigma, QOLLillis, Hayes, Bunting, Masuda, 2009, Annals of BMed • Randomized controlled pilot study (N=84) • 1-day ACT workshop • Targeted adults trying to lose weight and maintain weight loss • ACT group vs. Wait-list Control (TAU)

  33. Control ACT Weight Status at Follow-up 35 x² = 8.8, p<.003 d = 1.21 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 % gaining 5+ lbs % losing 5+ lbs

  34. Control ACT Stigma (WSQ) F = 24.3, p<.001 η2= .23 60 50 40 Baseline 3 Month FU

  35. Control ACT Quality of Life (ORWELL) F = 27.4, p<.001 η2= .25 60 45 30 Baseline 3 Month FU

  36. r = .11 p = .242 r = .44 p = .0027 Mediation Analysis: Weight Control c’ Experiential Avoidance a b r = .54 p = .0001 c Treatment Conditions BMI change r = .34 p = .002

  37. What does this tell us? • The treatment targeted experiential avoidance • Changes in experiential avoidance accounted for changes in weight, stigma, QOL. • Treatment packages targeting EA could impact relevant outcomes in other studies • Provides support for EA as a common core process • Targeting EA is relevant in area of stigma and health behavior change, should be helpful elsewhere

  38. Areas with mediation evidence • Treatment Outcome Studies • Depression, OCD, Worksite Stress • Rehospitalization (SMI) x2 • Weight Loss, Smoking Cessation, Diabetes Management, Epilepsy, Chronic Pain?

  39. Scope • Goals: prediction & influence with precision & scope • Create a science more adequate to the challenge of human suffering • Should have something to say about anything that relates to behavior (i.e. almost everything) • % of people who contact mental health? 5%?

  40. Relevant to Stigma and Prejudice? • RFT tells us that relational networks work by addition, not literal subtraction • Suppression and avoidance of cognitive content generally increases its impact, especially over time • Can ACT help?

  41. Stigma TreatmentHayes, Bisset et al, 2004, Behavior Therapy • 90 drug counselors randomly assigned to day long workshop on • ACT • Multicultural training • Class on biological models of SA • Stigma towards clients • Provider Burnout • 3 Month Follow-up

  42. Effects on Stigma Control Multicultural ACT

  43. Change in Burnout Education ACT Multicultural 4 0 -4 Pre- Post Pre- F-up Pre- Post Pre- F-up Pre- Post Pre- F-up

  44. Racial PrejudiceLillis and Hayes, 2007, BMod • Replicated with racial bias in a college student population • Within subject test comparing racial bias education and ACT • Alternating design • 32 participants across 2 classes • 90 minute class period • 1 week follow up

  45. Results

  46. Results

  47. Other areas: Limit testing • Psychosis, Epilepsy, Adjustment to College

  48. Effectiveness

  49. The Effectiveness ProjectStrosahl et al, Behavior Therapy, 1998 • 8 HMO therapists trained 1 yr in ACT; 10 not. The two group were self-selected, not randomized • Before training for a month all assigned clients (N=59) assessed at initial visit and 5 months later • All assigned clients (N=67) similarly assessed after 1 yr of training • No difference in average number of sessions

  50. Treatment was Faster

More Related