Evaluating the Preliminary Outcomes and Acceptability of a Virtual Adaptation of Acceptance and Commitment Training for Caregivers of People With Disabilities (“I Am Not Alone”): Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Family caregivers of children and youth with neurodevelopmental disabilities report higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression than other caregivers, yet few evidence-based mental health services are available to support them. Our previous research demonstrated that caregivers benefitted from our in-person group-based acceptance and commitment training (ACT) workshop, which increased their psychological flexibility and improved their mental well-being. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we adapted this intervention to be delivered virtually. OBJECTIVE In this study, we evaluated the program’s impact on caregivers’ psychological flexibility and mental well-being, as well as the acceptability of the virtual program. METHODS A total of 205 family caregivers of neurodivergent people or people with disabilities who registered for a virtual, group-based ACT intervention (10-12 hours across 5 or 6 weeks) from 1 of 27 teams across Canada participated in this research. ACT process (measured via the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, Self-Compassion Scale–Short Form, and Valued Living Questionnaire) and mental well-being outcomes (measured through the Patient Health Questionnaire, Parenting Stress Index, Multi-System Model of Resilience Inventory, and Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) were measured before and after the intervention and again at an 8-week follow-up. An acceptability survey was completed after the intervention, including items on satisfaction with virtual aspects of the intervention. RESULTS There was high intervention acceptability related to the virtual format (at least >80% satisfaction) despite variability in individual preferences (preferred in-person format: 28/91, 31%; preferred virtual format: 37/91, 41%; no preference: 26/91, 29%). Significant improvements were found for most ACT processes (fusion: F2,279=63.96; psychological flexibility: F2,264=38.81; values: F2,244=8.32; self-compassion: F2,170=33.59; P<.001 in all cases) and mental well-being measures (parental stress: F2,236=20.27; well-being: F2,137=22.89; mood: F2,15=23.12; resilience: F2,17=32.83; P<.001 in all cases). Pairwise comparisons between preintervention and follow-up showed maintenance of ACT skills (P<.001 in all cases; ηp2 ranged from 0.09 to 0.40) and well-being improvement (P<.001 in all cases; ηp2 ranged from 0.19 to 0.37). Direct content analysis of participants’ qualitative survey responses revealed that cognitive defusion, mindfulness, and acceptance were the most helpful ACT processes. We received feedback for modifications to formatting, pacing, content, and duration of the group to support a wider range of caregiver needs. CONCLUSIONS The virtual, group-based ACT intervention was acceptable and led to positive changes in psychological flexibility and mental well-being among family caregivers of people with disabilities or neurodivergent people, similar to outcomes observed with in-person delivery of the intervention. Further comparison and contrast with in-person programming is needed to ensure accessibility and sustainability of this program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".