RESUMEN
Psychological flexibility is a key concept of acceptation and commitment therapy (ACT). This factor has been linked with psychological wellbeing and associated factors, such as quality of life, in cancer patients. These and other positive results of acceptation and commitment therapy in cancer patients found in previous research could be enhanced by using mhealth tools. A three-arm randomized superiority clinical trial, with a pre-post-follow-up repeated measures intergroup design with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio is proposed. A hundred and twenty cancer patients will be randomly assigned to one of the following interventions: (1) face-to-face ACT + mobile application (app), (2) face-to-face ACT, and (3) Waitlist control group. The primary expected outcome is to observe significant improvements in psychological flexibility acceptance and action questionnaire- II (AAQ-II) in the face-to-face ACT + app group, after comparing baseline and post-treatment scores, and the scores will remain stable in the two assessment points, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Secondary expected outcomes are significant increasing scores in quality of life (EORTC QLQ C-30) and post-traumatic-growth (PTGI-SF), and significant decreasing scores in anxiety and depression (HADS), insomnia (ISI) and fatigue (BFI) at the same assessment points. Also, it is expected that the scores of this group will be higher than the scores of the face-to-face ACT group and the waitlist control group. This study aims to assess the efficacy of a combined intervention (face-to face ACT + app) for psychological flexibility and associated symptoms in cancer patients. The results of this protocol may help to consider the use of acceptation and commitment therapy and mhealth applications in cancer settings as a valid therapeutic choice. Clinical Trial Registration: [www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT05126823].
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) is associated with outcomes. Although the neurocognitive basis of insight is widely accepted, the specific contribution of decision-making (Jumping to Conclusions [JTC]), Cognitive Insight (CI), and Theory of Mind (ToM) to insight remains unclear. METHODS: The sample included N = 77 SSD outpatients aged 18-64 years from a randomized controlled trial of metacognitive training. Assessments included JTC-Beads Task, CI-Beck Cognitive Insight Scale, ToM-Hinting Task, and the Emotions Recognition Test Faces. STATISTICS: hierarchical multivariable linear regression models tested their contribution to total insight (TI) and three insight dimensions - illness recognition (IR), symptom relabelling (SR), and treatment compliance (TC) - measured with the Schedule for the Assessment of Insight - Expanded version, whilst adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Bivariate analyses showed that CI was associated with TI (R2 change = 0.214; p < 0.001), IR (R2 change = 0.154; p = 0.003), and SR (R2 change = 0.168; p = 0.003), while JTC predicted IR (R2 change = 0.790; p = 0.020). Multivariable regression models showed that CI predicted TI (R2 change = 0.116; p = 0.036) and SR (R2 change = 0.166, p = 0.011), whereas JTC was linked with IR (R2 change = 0.710; p = 0.026). ToM was not linked with any insight score. No cognitive variable was associated with treatment compliance. DISCUSSION: Results supported the (meta)cognitive model of insight in SSD. JTC and CI emerged as the main (meta)cognitive processes underlying insight. Metacognitive interventions may therefore improve insight in SSD, although these therapies alone may fail to address treatment compliance.