Cited by 75Digital Mental Health InterventionsMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsStress and Burnout Research

A preliminary comparison of the efficacy of online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) stress management interventions for social and healthcare workers

Barrett, Kate, Stewart, Ian·2021·Health & Social Care in the Community

Abstract

Social and healthcare workers have been shown to experience greater levels of illness, depression and burnout as a result of chronic workplace stress. The purpose of this study was to examine whether brief online ACT and CBT interventions could reduce the experience of stress and burnout in employees, while also improving mental health and psychological flexibility. A total of 42 individuals working within the social and healthcare professions were randomly assigned to either a 2-week online ACT or CBT intervention. Recruitment was undertaken internationally, although the majority of participants were based in Ireland at the time of their participation (79%). Participants' perceived stress, burnout, mental health and work-related psychological flexibility were assessed at baseline and post-treatment. Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted on all data. Outcomes indicated that both interventions resulted in significant improvements in stress, burnout and mental health scores from baseline to post-treatment. No significant differences were observed between ACT and CBT conditions, or in psychological flexibility scores from baseline to post-treatment. Reliable Change Index (RCI) scores indicated that clinically significant improvements in stress and mental health were seen in 42% and 19% of programme-completers, respectively. These results provide preliminary evidence for the usefulness of brief internet-delivered ACT and CBT interventions for the treatment of occupational stress and its comorbid symptoms. Online programmes with a longer duration and additional therapist support should be evaluated, as these may improve the outcomes of future interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hsc.13074

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barrett, K., & Stewart, I.
Affiliations
  • School of Psychology National University of Ireland Galway Ireland
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
Venue
Health & Social Care in the Community
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-07-02
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
113-126
ISSN
  • 0966-0410 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2524
OpenAlex
W3038545999
Cited by
73
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health & Social Care in the Community (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
acceptance and commitment therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, online intervention, online therapy, occupational stress, burnout, mental health, psychological flexibility, brief psychological intervention
MeSH terms
Burnout, Professional, Health Personnel, Humans, Mental Health, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review