ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2025
Acceptability of acceptance and commitment therapy for medication-decision-making and quality of life in women with breast cancer: A qualitative process evaluation.
Article in British journal of health psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acceptability of acceptance and commitment therapy for medication-decision-making and quality of life in women with breast cancer: A qualitative process evaluation.British journal of health psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAdjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) reduces breast cancer recurrence, but side effects and distress impact adherence. We co-designed an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention to support medication decision-making and quality of life in women prescribed AET (ACTION). In a qualitative process evaluation nested in the pilot trial, we aimed to elicit participant experiences of receipt and therapists experience of delivery of ACTION to enhance our understanding of acceptability.
designRemote semi-structured interviews were conducted with women with breast cancer who received ACTION (n = 20) and trial therapists (n = 3).
methodsInterviews were guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Rapid Assessment Procedure (RAP) sheets were completed after each interview to map responses onto TFA constructs, and sections of interviews were selectively transcribed. Individual RAP sheets were collated to identify key findings.
resultsACTION was generally liked, in particular, the group format (affective attitude). Participants and therapists felt ACTION was low effort, but therapists acknowledged the burden associated with trial procedures (burden). Participants generally felt able to engage with ACTION, and therapists felt they were able to deliver it (self-efficacy). The perceived effectiveness of ACTION on well-being was good, but was mixed for impact on treatment adherence (perceived effectiveness). Participants and therapists understood the aims of ACTION (coherence), and ACTION generally aligned with therapists' values (ethicality). Therapists questioned who would be most appropriate to deliver ACTION (opportunity costs).
conclusionACTION was acceptable to women with breast cancer and trial therapists. Rapid qualitative analysis can facilitate efficient process evaluations in time- and resource-limited contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.