Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Advertisement

Citing this Article

Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)

Published on 24.07.19 in Vol 8, No 7 (2019): July

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at http://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/14432, first published Apr 17, 2019.

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

    Protocol

    Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Experiences in Youth With Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Depression: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Qualitative Study

    1Mater Clinical School and Princess Alexandra Clinical School, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Australia

    2Mater Young Adult Health Centre, Mater Misericordiae Ltd, South Brisbane, Australia

    3Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Corresponding Author:

    Tatjana Ewais, MD, FRANZCP

    Mater Clinical School and Princess Alexandra Clinical School

    School of Medicine

    University of Queensland

    Raymond Terrace

    South Brisbane, 4101

    Australia

    Phone: 61 7 3163 5800

    Fax:61 7 3163 8445

    Email: tatjanaewais@gmail.com


    ABSTRACT

    Background: Mindfulness-based programs are increasingly used as a part of integrated treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, the majority of research has been quantitative with limited qualitative exploration of patients’ experiences of mindfulness programs and no studies among adolescents and young adults with IBD. Furthermore, there has been a paucity of research exploring the role of common psychotherapy and group factors within mindfulness programs.

    Objective: This study aims to explore the experiences of adolescents and young adults with IBD and depression who completed a mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) group program, as well as the role of therapeutic alliance, group affiliation, and other common psychotherapy and group factors.

    Methods: This mixed methods qualitative study, nested within a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of MBCT for adolescents and young adults with IBD, will obtain qualitative data from focus groups and open-ended survey questions. The study aims to conduct three to four focus groups with 6-8 participants in each group. It will employ data and investigator triangulation as well as thematic analysis of the qualitative data.

    Results: The study was approved by the Mater Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee and recruitment commenced in May 2019; study completion is anticipated by early 2020.

    Conclusions: The study will contribute to the assessment of acceptability and feasibility of the MBCT program for adolescents and young adults with IBD. It will also elucidate the role of previously unexplored common psychotherapy and group factors within mindfulness training and help inform the design of a future large-scale RCT of MBCT in this cohort.

    Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12617000876392; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373115

    International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/14432

    JMIR Res Protoc 2019;8(7):e14432

    doi:10.2196/14432

    KEYWORDS

    Crowdfunding campaign to support this specific research

    We help JMIR researchers to raise funds to pursue their research and development aimed at tackling important health and technology challenges. If you would like to show your support for this author, please donate using the button below. The funds raised will directly benefit the corresponding author of this article (minus 8% admin fees). Your donations will help this author to continue publishing open access papers in JMIR journals. Donations of over $100 may also be acknowledged in future publications.

    keyboard with crowdfunding key instead of enter key

    Suggested contribution levels: $20/$50/$100



    Introduction

    Background

    Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is an immune-mediated condition characterized by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, a relapsing and remitting course, and frequent systemic manifestations [1-3]. The peak age of onset is between the ages of 15 and 29, with wide-ranging implications in all areas of life, including relationships, education, and employment opportunities [4,5]. As a result of the high burden of illness in IBD, adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with IBD experience disruption at a crucial developmental stage with significantly impaired quality of life as well as rates of depression and anxiety two to three times higher than in the general population or among youth with other chronic diseases [6,7]. There is well-documented research evidence supporting the impact of depression on the course of IBD as well as the bidirectional relationship between IBD and depression, showing that they can both precipitate the onset and worsen the course of each other [8].

    Mindfulness, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and Depression

    Mindfulness interventions are defined as therapeutic interventions based on core mindfulness principles; they contain various informal and formal practices, such as mindfulness of the breath, body scanning, mindful movement or yoga, and open or choiceless awareness. Mindfulness as a concept is described as a process of nonjudgmental, intentional awareness of one’s internal and external reality, characterized by “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment and non-judgmentally” [9]. Mindfulness-based interventions have been increasingly trialed in IBD patients because of their potential to treat both depression and IBD [10,11], as well as attenuating immune system abnormalities, thereby improving the course of IBD [12,13]. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) are two manualized, 8-week group programs with strong evidence in the treatment of depression and anxiety that have been used successfully in integrated treatment of individuals with IBD [14-17]. The mindfulness-based cognitive therapy program used in this study is an 8-week group mindfulness program with weekly sessions of 2 hours, which contain a mixture of various cognitive skills and mindfulness practices. These are taught and practiced during the sessions as well as between sessions in home practices. The program closely follows the original MBCT curriculum designed by Segal, Williams, and Teasdale [18], adapted for both IBD and young adults. Modifications related to IBD include IBD-specific teaching content, such the role of stress in flares and gut-brain axis, as well as modified mindful movement practices with more restorative yoga and adapted postures for those with joint pain and perianal disease. Developmental modifications include shortened mindfulness practices, as AYAs often cannot sustain longer practices compared to adults; modified mindful movement practices, as AYAs often prefer mindful movement and yoga to body scanning and often prefer a slightly faster pace; fun postcards to help identify emotional states; and youth-friendly poetry.

    Although mindfulness-based treatments have been used successfully in adults with IBD [14-17] and among AYAs with other chronic illnesses and depression [19-21], there have been no studies of mindfulness programs in AYAs with IBD. The majority of research has involved quantitative clinical trials investigating the impact of mindfulness training on psychosocial and disease-related parameters in individuals with IBD, with only one qualitative study exploring adult IBD sufferers’ experiences of a mindfulness-based program [22]. Importantly, there have been no studies investigating mindfulness in AYAs with IBD.

    We will therefore conduct a mixed methods qualitative study to explore experiences of MBCT in AYAs with IBD who are currently participating in the randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an IBD-focused and developmentally informed MBCT program; we will also explore the role of common psychotherapy and group factors in the MBCT program. The study will collect and analyze qualitative data from two different sources: focus groups and open-ended questions from the post-MBCT evaluation survey.

    Common Psychotherapy Factors and Group Factors in Mindfulness Training

    Common factors in psychotherapy are therapeutic elements that are common to diverse psychotherapies and are responsible for many of their therapeutic benefits [23,24]. These factors may account for relative therapeutic equivalence of outcomes for a range of psychotherapeutic models that are found in meta-analytic studies [23-29]. The notion of common factors was first introduced in 1936 in Rosenzweig’s seminal paper, which outlined the therapeutic relationship, therapy rationale or ideology, and integration of subsystems of the patient’s personality and the therapist’s personality as key common factors present in all types of psychotherapies [23]. Common factors were subsequently expanded to include delivery of prescribed treatments or rituals [30] and enactment of adaptive or health-promoting actions [24]; factors were grouped into nonspecific common factors, such therapeutic alliance and expectations, and specific factors, such as exposure and sense of mastery [25,27]. It is likely that common psychotherapy factors operate within mindfulness programs as they, in addition to mindfulness skills training, contain reflective, exploratory, and supportive elements; mindfulness itself has been postulated as one of the core common factors in psychotherapy [31]. Despite this, there has been only one study to date exploring the role of common factors in mindfulness training [32] and no studies exploring group factors in mindfulness interventions.

    Group factors are key psychotherapeutic factors that facilitate change in group therapies and include the following: instillation of hope, universality, imparting information, altruism or helping others in the group, corrective recapitulation of the primary family group through developing connections within the group, development of socializing through group communication, interpersonal learning, group cohesiveness or social affiliation, experience of relief associated with free emotional expression, and existential factors [33]. Although these group factors were initially considered specific to psychotherapeutic groups, it has since been accepted that they are present in most group settings, including education and support groups [34,35], and they are likely to have a role within mindfulness groups.

    Our decision to explore the role of common psychotherapy and group factors in mindfulness training was driven by an informed hypothesis of their potential role in mindfulness-based therapies, as well as consistent and recurrent feedback from MBCT group participants that the most important factors in their recovery were mindfulness and friendship. Many of the reported benefits were related to the common factors of exposure, mastery, and expectations. They also commented on their perceived positive impact of the therapy, the facilitator’s skills, and their engagement to the group facilitator, which were consistent with common factors of therapeutic alliance and the therapist’s personality. Their description of friendship, which they rated as the most important of all MBCT benefits, focused on a sense of belonging, social affiliation, and peer support. These experiences of friendship or belonging are in stark contrast to their pre-MBCT experience of feeling isolated with a chronic illness. Their description of friendship created within and outside of the MBCT group corresponded to the therapeutic group factors of social affiliation and engendering hope.

    Objectives

    The purpose of this study is to explore AYAs’ experiences of a developmentally informed and IBD-focused MBCT group with a focus on their views of the program’s benefits and acceptability, perceived barriers, and suggestions for further adaptation. A secondary objective is to investigate the role of therapeutic alliance, group affiliation, and other common psychotherapy and group factors within mindfulness training.


    Methods

    Study Design

    This is a mixed methods qualitative study exploring experiences of AYAs with IBD participating in an MBCT program. This qualitative study is embedded within the RCT of an adapted MBCT program for AYAs with IBD and depression, which is described in detail in the study protocol [36]. The design adheres to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines, a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups [37]. The study will use two different sources of qualitative data, including focus groups and free-text questions from the post-MBCT evaluation survey. Focus groups will be conducted and analyzed according to Krueger and Casey’s focus groups guide [38]. An inductive thematic analysis approach will be used to analyze the qualitative data [39].

    Rationale for Employing a Mixed Methods Qualitative Approach

    Mixed methods research is defined as the use of different methodological approaches in a single study or a set of related studies, which are likely to create more meaningful and ultimately more useful data in answering the research questions [40]. In recent years, the concept of mixed methods research has been expanded to any research that combines different styles of research, not restricted to combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Mixed methods research is also known as “between research paradigm mixing” but may also include “within research paradigm mixing.” The latter can refer to mixing different qualitative approaches, such as qualitative interviews, participant observation, and qualitative documents, as well as mixing different quantitative approaches, such as quantitative surveys combined with quantitative experimental research [40,41].

    We chose a mixed methods approach combining qualitative data from different sources, as previous research in this area has supported the use of focus groups in combination with surveys [22]. Focus groups also fit the study’s dual purpose of evaluating the MBCT program through participants’ views of its feasibility and acceptability, while exploring their experiences and views of common therapeutic and group factors within the mindfulness group. They are particularly well suited to understanding MBCT group experiences, given their permissive and inclusive group processes and nondirective interviewing techniques that facilitate expression of participants’ views, attitudes, verbal and nonverbal interactions, and shared experiences [38,42]. Furthermore, focus groups may hold an advantage over individual interviews in that they can provide additional information through promoting group exchanges and self-disclosure in this cohort of young participants with similar backgrounds, as participants “tend to disclose more of themselves to those who resemble them in various ways” [38].

    Combining qualitative data from focus groups and MBCT evaluation surveys, as well as using two researchers for coding and analysis, will ensure a rich dataset and facilitate data and investigator triangulation and thematic saturation, thus strengthening the study validity.

    Recruitment and Sampling

    Participants will be recruited from the 64 participants enrolled in the RCT of MBCT for AYAs with IBD and depression. Inclusion criteria will be participation in the RCT of MBCT for AYAs with IBD and completion of the MBCT course, defined as attendance at a minimum of five out of eight sessions of the program, the accepted benchmark for completion. We will also record the reasons for nonengagement among those who decline participation or drop out before completion; these will be collated and discussed in the final study report.

    All the participants who completed the MBCT group program will be asked to complete a post-MBCT evaluation survey, which contains qualitative questions about their group experiences. They will also be invited to participate in the focus groups. Participants will be offered parking vouchers and public transport cards; focus groups will be conducted after hours to accommodate those studying or working.

    As there will be four MBCT group programs conducted over 2 years, participants will provide their post-MBCT evaluation surveys upon completion of the MBCT group program; this qualitative data will be collated and analyzed following the last MBCT group program completion. Participants will also be invited to participate in focus groups upon completing the MBCT program and after completing the MBCT evaluation survey. The recruitment for focus groups commenced following the second MBCT group program completion in May 2019 to ensure sufficient focus group participant numbers. Focus groups will be conducted between June and December 2019. Participants will be invited to participate in focus groups via face-to-face meetings, email, and phone, and those who express interest will meet with the research assistant who will explain the focus group process in more detail and will obtain consent.

    Sampling will be purposive, in keeping with the definition of purposive sampling from the COREQ guidelines, which state that this “involves selecting participants who share particular characteristics and have the potential to provide rich, relevant and diverse data pertinent to the research question” [37]. Purposive sampling selects participants based on the study purpose, in contrast with convenience sampling, which selects participants based on “certain practical criteria, such as easy accessibility, geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or the willingness to participate” [43]. We are therefore selecting all participants who completed the MBCT program, as this is a characteristic relevant to our study purpose of exploring the experience of MBCT in AYAs who completed the program. Specifically, we will invite all the participants who completed the MBCT program to complete the MBCT evaluation survey and to participate in focus groups. The sampling for the focus groups will also be consecutive; it will proceed until the desired number of participants have been recruited to conduct a sufficient number of focus groups in order to achieve thematic saturation. We envisage running three to four focus groups of 6-8 participants in each. This size of focus group is consistent with the recommended number of participants for clinical focus groups to accommodate for the clinical nature of the group; facilitate moderation and expression of individual opinions; and provide rich, but not overwhelming, data [39,44,45]. Therefore, our proposed group size of 6-8 participants is in keeping with these generally accepted recommendations and fits the nature of our clinical sample. The recommended number of focus groups varies depending on the purpose of the research, group homogeneity, and use of additional sources of qualitative data, with most guides proposing that three to four focus groups are likely to be sufficient to achieve across-group analysis and thematic saturation [38,44,45]. Our proposed number of focus groups and their size is consistent with these recommendations and, therefore, likely to provide us with a sufficient sample size to achieve thematic saturation.

    Development of Questioning Route for Focus Groups

    We followed Krueger and Casey’s recommendations in developing the questioning route by creating questions that are clear, engaging, and likely to evoke conversation among the participants [38]. Our questioning route contains a mixture of open-ended and more targeted questions about participants’ group experiences. We also created questions regarding their views on the role of common psychotherapeutic factors (eg, engagement with and the role of the group facilitator) and affiliation with peers in the same age group with the same medical condition. The questioning route for focus groups is summarized in Textbox 1.


    Textbox 1. Questioning route for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) focus groups.
    View this box

    Focus groups will be conducted in a facility purposefully designed for focus group interviewing, with equipment for audiotaping and a viewing room allowing observers to unobtrusively watch the interviews through a one-way mirror. Each focus group will last from 1 to 2 hours. Focus groups will be run by the moderator and an assistant, with an observer behind the one-way mirror. The observer and the assistant will observe participants’ verbal and nonverbal interactions that may be missed by the moderator who is immersed in running the focus group; they will also take notes of relevant quotes, key points, ideas, and themes.

    The moderator (AH) is a psychologist whom most of the participants have not met prior to the focus groups. The assistant is the study research assistant with a degree in public health, and the observer (TE) is the study principal investigator who is a psychiatrist by training. Participants will meet the research assistant and the observer during the RCT recruitment.

    The moderator will follow the questioning route guide and facilitate discussion relevant to the study purpose. As soon as the focus group is finished, the moderator, assistant, and observer will meet outside the room to discuss any additional observations and decide on asking any follow-up questions. For instance, it may be that the observer or assistant notice that a participant was interrupted while raising an interesting point. In such cases, the facilitator will return and ask a follow-up question. These additional observations and questions will be included in the follow-up research team meetings and potentially provide a richer dataset.

    Participants will be given the opportunity to review focus group transcripts. They will be provided with the results of preliminary analysis and given the opportunity to comment. At the end of the study, a summary of the study findings will be given to all participants.

    Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Evaluation Survey

    Upon conclusion of the 8-week MBCT program, all participants who completed the course will be asked to fill out the post-MBCT evaluation survey (see Multimedia Appendix 1). The survey contains a mixture of closed-ended and open-ended free-text questions exploring participants’ experiences, expectations, perceived barriers, and benefits, as well as suggestions for program improvement. Surveys are a commonly used method in health research, and qualitative analysis of free-text open-ended survey questions has been recognized as an important tool in providing valuable insights into participants’ views and experiences [46,47]. Open-ended survey questions complement the focus group questions and combining their qualitative data in thematic analysis will provide a richer dataset and strengthen the study validity.

    Data Analysis

    Focus groups will be audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data from focus groups and open-ended survey questions will be analyzed using thematic analysis [39]. Thematic analysis has been chosen because it is a flexible qualitative research method for identification, analysis, and reporting of key themes and subthemes within data that can highlight similarities and differences within the data and generate insights [39]. Furthermore, an inductive thematic analysis approach will suit the exploratory nature of our study.

    Analysis will start with two research team members—moderator and observer—who will first familiarize themselves with the data through reading and rereading of the collected data. They will individually and separately develop initial codes based on emerging clusters of statements. The coding process will follow the recommendations outlined in Saldaña’s Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers [47] in that the researchers will develop and test the codes in two cycles. Initial codes will be developed in the first coding cycle and tested on the subsection of data to eliminate any overlapping codes, refine the existing codes, and introduce any new codes. The second coding cycle will further refine and highlight salient features of the codes to facilitate subsequent generation of categories, concepts, and themes. The final codes will be independently applied to the full dataset by the two researchers and discussed until an agreement is reached on the interpretation. The analysis and grouping of the codes will enable identification of categories, followed by analysis and comparing of the major categories, leading to emergence of relevant themes and concepts.

    The researchers will work iteratively and inductively with the data until distinct themes develop and no new themes emerge (ie, thematic saturation is achieved). The emerging themes will be discussed among the investigators to achieve triangulation and ensure that all relevant data are captured. Further triangulation will be achieved by combining different sources of data: focus groups transcripts and open-ended free-text qualitative questions from the post-MBCT evaluation survey. Representative quotes will be used to illustrate the codes and themes.


    Results

    This study was funded by the Brain-Injured Children’s Aftercare Recovery Endeavours (BICARE) project grant in January 2018 and approved by the Mater Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. Recruitment commenced in May 2019; completion of the qualitative data analysis and results are anticipated by early 2020.


    Discussion

    There is a paucity of qualitative studies investigating mindfulness program participants’ experiences among the IBD population, despite a multitude of quantitative trials exploring the efficacy of mindfulness programs in treating IBD-related psychosocial comorbidities and their impact on the course of IBD. The only study to date of MBCT experiences among individuals with IBD was conducted in adults and focused predominantly on participants’ views of the MBCT program’s barriers and benefits [22]. Furthermore, there has been only one study to date investigating the role of common factors in mindfulness interventions [32] and no studies exploring the role of group factors in mindfulness-based interventions.

    To our knowledge, this mixed methods qualitative study will be the first to use a more inductive approach to explore participants’ MBCT experiences and the only study conducted in AYAs with IBD. This study will also be the first to investigate the role of therapeutic alliance, sense of mastery, group affiliation, and other common psychotherapy and group factors within mindfulness training. It will employ thematic analysis of qualitative data from focus groups and open-ended qualitative survey questions. The study will fulfil the dual purpose of exploring the experiences, feasibility, and acceptability of the MBCT program among AYAs with IBD, as well as providing greater understanding of the role of common psychotherapeutic and group factors within the mindfulness program.

    The study findings will facilitate interpretation of the results of the RCT of MBCT in AYAs with IBD and will help inform the design of a future large RCT of MBCT in this patient cohort.

    Acknowledgments

    This study was supported by a project grant from the BICARE initiative.

    Authors' Contributions

    The protocol and manuscript were drafted by TE, with assistance from SK, MK, JB, and AH. All authors read and revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    The mindfulness-based cognitive therapy group evaluation survey.

    DOCX File, 16KB

    References

    1. Abraham C, Cho JH. Inflammatory bowel disease. N Engl J Med 2009 Nov 19;361(21):2066-2078 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Graham DB, Xavier RJ. From genetics of inflammatory bowel disease towards mechanistic insights. Trends Immunol 2013 Aug;34(8):371-378 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Kumar V, Wijmenga C, Xavier RJ. Genetics of immune-mediated disorders: From genome-wide association to molecular mechanism. Curr Opin Immunol 2014 Dec;31:51-57 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Johnston RD, Logan RFA. What is the peak age for onset of IBD? Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008 Oct;14 Suppl 2:S4-S5. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Greenley RN, Hommel KA, Nebel J, Raboin T, Li S, Simpson P, et al. A meta-analytic review of the psychosocial adjustment of youth with inflammatory bowel disease. J Pediatr Psychol 2010 Sep;35(8):857-869 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Neuendorf R, Harding A, Stello N, Hanes D, Wahbeh H. Depression and anxiety in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review. J Psychosom Res 2016 Dec;87:70-80. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Fuller-Thomson E, Sulman J. Depression and inflammatory bowel disease: Findings from two nationally representative Canadian surveys. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2006 Aug;12(8):697-707. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Mikocka-Walus A, Pittet V, Rossel J, von Känel R, Swiss IBD Cohort Study Group. Symptoms of depression and anxiety are independently associated with clinical recurrence of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016 Dec;14(6):829-835.e1. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Kabat-Zinn J. Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. New York, NY: Hyperion; 1994.
    10. van Aalderen JR, Donders AR, Peffer K, Speckens AE. Long-term outcome of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in recurrently depressed patients with and without a depressive episode at baseline. Depress Anxiety 2015 Aug;32(8):563-569. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Klainin-Yobas P, Cho MA, Creedy D. Efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions on depressive symptoms among people with mental disorders: A meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2012 Jan;49(1):109-121. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Black DS, Slavich GM. Mindfulness meditation and the immune system: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2016 Dec;1373(1):13-24 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Bower JE, Irwin MR. Mind-body therapies and control of inflammatory biology: A descriptive review. Brain Behav Immun 2016 Jan;51:1-11 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Ewais T, Begun J, Kenny M, Rickett K, Hay K, Ajilchi B, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of mindfulness based interventions and yoga in inflammatory bowel disease. J Psychosom Res 2019 Jan;116:44-53. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Schoultz M, Atherton I, Watson A. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for inflammatory bowel disease patients: Findings from an exploratory pilot randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015 Aug 25;16:379 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Ballou S, Keefer L. Psychological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2017 Jan 19;8(1):e214 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Neilson K, Ftanou M, Monshat K, Salzberg M, Bell S, Kamm MA, et al. A controlled study of a group mindfulness intervention for individuals living with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016 Mar;22(3):694-701. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Segal ZV, Williams JMG, Teasdale JD. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression. 2nd edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2012.
    19. Klingbeil DA, Renshaw TL, Willenbrink JB, Copek RA, Chan KT, Haddock A, et al. Mindfulness-based interventions with youth: A comprehensive meta-analysis of group-design studies. J Sch Psychol 2017 Dec;63:77-103. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Zoogman S, Goldberg S, Hoyt W, Miller L. Mindfulness interventions with youth: A meta-analysis. Mindfulness 2014 Jan 15;6(2):290-302. [CrossRef]
    21. Chi X, Bo A, Liu T, Zhang P, Chi I. Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on depression in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol 2018;9:1034 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Schoultz M, Macaden L, Hubbard G. Participants' perspectives on mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: A qualitative study nested within a pilot randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016;2:3 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Rosenzweig S. Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1936;6(3):412-415. [CrossRef]
    24. Wampold BE. How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update. World Psychiatry 2015 Oct;14(3):270-277 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Weinberger J. Common factors aren't so common: The common factors dilemma. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 1995;2(1):45-69. [CrossRef]
    26. Weinberger J. Short paper, large impact: Rosenzweig's influence on the common factors movement. J Psychother Integr 2002;12(1):67-76. [CrossRef]
    27. Weinberger J. Common factors are not so common and specific factors are not so specified: Toward an inclusive integration of psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy (Chic) 2014 Dec;51(4):514-518. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Drisko J. Common factors in psychotherapy outcome: Meta-analytic findings and their implications for practice and research. Fam Soc 2018 May 03;85(1):81-90. [CrossRef]
    29. Del Re AC, Flückiger C, Horvath AO, Symonds D, Wampold BE. Therapist effects in the therapeutic alliance-outcome relationship: A restricted-maximum likelihood meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2012 Nov;32(7):642-649. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Frank JD, Frank JB. Persuasion and Healing: A Comparative Study of Psychotherapy. 3rd edition. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1993.
    31. Martin J. Mindfulness: A proposed common factor. J Psychother Integr 1997 Dec;7(4):291-312. [CrossRef]
    32. Day A, Halpin E, Thorn E. An empirical examination of the role of common factors of therapy during a mindfulness-based cognitive therapy intervention for headache pain. Clin J Pain 2016 May;32(5):420-427. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Yalom ID, Leszcz M. Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. 5th edition. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2005.
    34. Diefenbeck CA, Klemm PR, Hayes ER. Emergence of Yalom's therapeutic factors in a peer-led, asynchronous, online support group for family caregivers. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2014 Jan;35(1):21-32. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Sugarman D, Wigderson S, Iles B, Kaufman J, Fitzmaurice G, Hilario E, et al. Measuring affiliation in group therapy for substance use disorders in the Women's Recovery Group study: Does it matter whether the group is all-women or mixed-gender? Am J Addict 2016 Dec;25(7):573-580 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Ewais T, Begun J, Kenny M, Chuang K, Barclay J, Hay K, et al. Protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in youth with inflammatory bowel disease and depression. BMJ Open 2019 Apr 20;9(4):e025568 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007 Dec;19(6):349-357. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2015.
    39. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006 Jan;3(2):77-101. [CrossRef]
    40. Johnson R, Onwuegbuzie A, Turner L. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res 2016 Jun 29;1(2):112-133. [CrossRef]
    41. Silverman D. Doing Qualitative Research. 5th edition. London, UK: SAGE Publications; 2017.
    42. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN, Rook DW. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2007.
    43. Etikan I, Musa SA, Alkassim RS. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat 2015;5(1):1-4. [CrossRef]
    44. Barbour R. Making sense of focus groups. Med Educ 2005 Jul;39(7):742-750. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Barbour R. In: Flick U, editor. Doing Focus Groups. London, UK: SAGE Publications; 2007.
    46. Garcia J, Evans J, Reshaw M. "Is there anything else you would like to tell us": Methodological issues in the use of free-text comments from postal surveys. Qual Quant 2004 Apr;38(2):113-125. [CrossRef]
    47. Saldaña J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London, UK: SAGE Publications; 2009.


    Abbreviations

    AYAs: adolescents and young adults
    BICARE: Brain-Injured Children’s Aftercare Recovery Endeavours
    COREQ: consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research
    IBD: inflammatory bowel disease
    MBCT: mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
    MBSR: mindfulness-based stress reduction
    RCT: randomized controlled trial


    Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 17.04.19; peer-reviewed by Z Grover, M DeJonckheere, L Brennan, J del Hoyo Francisco, A Murphy, C Parsons; comments to author 13.05.19; revised version received 08.06.19; accepted 09.06.19; published 24.07.19

    ©Tatjana Ewais, Jakob Begun, Maura Kenny, Alan Headey, Steve Kisely. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 24.07.2019.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.