The study was designed as a single-site, parallel-group, three-arm superiority randomized controlled trial with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. Sixty-six caregivers of cancer patients were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a cognitive-behavioral stress management program, an acceptance and commitment therapy program, or a control group receiving no experimental intervention. Both active interventions were delivered in person and followed an identical structure of eight sessions, each lasting ninety minutes and conducted twice a week. That symmetry matters methodologically, because it ensures that any difference in outcomes between the two treatments could not be attributed to differences in dose, duration, or delivery format.

To measure the effects, participants in all three groups completed two validated instruments at three time points: before the intervention, immediately after it, and at a two-month follow-up. Quality of life was assessed with the Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer, a scale developed specifically to capture the multidimensional burden experienced by family caregivers of cancer patients, including disruption, financial strain, and emotional distress. Fatigue was measured with the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, which evaluates the construct across several dimensions such as general fatigue, physical fatigue, mental fatigue, reduced motivation, and reduced activity. Both instruments have previously been psychometrically validated in Iranian samples, making them well suited to the study population.

The statistical analysis relied on multivariate analysis of covariance, a technique that allows researchers to compare multiple outcomes across groups simultaneously while controlling for pre-existing differences at baseline. The results showed a statistically significant difference in both quality of life and caregiver fatigue among the three groups at both the posttest and follow-up phases, with p values below 0.05. In plain terms, caregivers who received either active therapy reported better quality of life and less fatigue than those who received neither, and those benefits were still detectable two months after the sessions ended.

There was, however, one important nuance. In the cognitive-behavioral stress management group, the improvement in quality of life was not maintained at the two-month follow-up, whereas the fatigue benefits persisted. In the acceptance and commitment therapy group, both the quality-of-life gains and the fatigue reductions held up over the follow-up period. Even so, when the researchers directly compared the two interventions against each other, they found no statistically significant difference between them on either outcome. Both therapies beat the control condition, but neither could claim superiority over its rival.

The equivalence finding is scientifically interesting because the two therapies rest on quite different theoretical foundations. Cognitive-behavioral stress management, developed by Michael Antoni, Gail Ironson, and Neil Schneiderman, is an offshoot of classical cognitive-behavioral therapy that combines cognitive restructuring, coping skills training, relaxation techniques, and stress-management strategies. Its core logic is that caregivers suffer because distorted appraisals and ineffective coping amplify the stress response, and that teaching people to identify, challenge, and replace maladaptive thoughts while regulating physiological arousal will reduce both psychological distress and its somatic consequences, including exhaustion.

Acceptance and commitment therapy, introduced by Steven Hayes and colleagues in 1999, takes a fundamentally different route to the same destination. Rather than trying to change the content of difficult thoughts, ACT uses mindfulness, acceptance, cognitive defusion, and values clarification to change a person’s relationship to those thoughts. Caregivers are encouraged to notice painful feelings without struggling against them and to commit to actions guided by their deeper values, even in the presence of distress. A growing body of evidence, including a 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis in Scientific Reports on ACT for caregivers of people with cancer, has supported this approach, and recent randomized trials have shown ACT’s promise for fatigue interference in patients with metastatic breast cancer and advanced lung cancer.

The fact that these two mechanistically distinct interventions produced comparable outcomes speaks to a broader debate in psychotherapy research. Some researchers argue that common factors, such as therapeutic attention, structured support, group cohesion, and the simple experience of being seen and helped, drive much of the benefit across different therapy brands. Others maintain that specific techniques matter but often converge on similar functional outcomes. The present trial cannot adjudicate that debate definitively, but its null comparison between CBSM and ACT adds to a literature, including meta-analyses by Francisco Ruiz and trials by A-Tjak and colleagues, in which ACT and traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy repeatedly perform similarly across conditions ranging from depression to chronic illness.

Why should the equivalence result matter for caregivers in the real world? Family caregivers of cancer patients manage symptoms at home, coordinate treatment, absorb financial and emotional shocks, and frequently neglect their own health. Prior research has documented elevated fatigue, depression, anxiety, and diminished quality of life in this population, and caregiver fatigue has been proposed as a distinct clinical concept in nursing science. Yet caregivers are rarely the direct target of clinical services; the patient is. This trial suggests that relatively brief, structured psychological programs, eight sessions over four weeks, can produce measurable and partly durable improvements in caregivers’ daily functioning and wellbeing, which in turn may stabilize the care environment around the patient.

The durability question deserves attention. The finding that ACT’s quality-of-life gains persisted at two months while CBSM’s did not hints that acceptance-based and values-driven processes may support longer-term adaptation, even when short-term symptom relief is similar. It is a single trial with a modest sample of sixty-six participants at one site, so the difference in durability should be treated as preliminary rather than definitive, and the study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT07329868. Still, the authors conclude that both ACT and CBSM offer a promising foundation for developing supportive and therapeutic programs aimed at improving the mental health of cancer caregivers. For health systems searching for scalable ways to care for the people who do the quiet work of caring, the message is encouraging: two well-tested psychological tools are now validated for the job, and clinicians may reasonably choose whichever fits their setting, their training, and the values of the families they serve.

Subject of Research: Comparing cognitive-behavioral stress management and acceptance and commitment therapy for quality of life and fatigue in caregivers of cancer patients

Article Title: A comparison of the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral stress management and acceptance and commitment therapy on the quality of life and fatigue of caregivers of patients with cancer: a randomized controlled trial

Article References: Hosseini, F. A.-S., Choobforoushzadeh, A., Mortazavizadeh, S. M. R., & Mirsaleh, Y. R. (2026). A comparison of the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral stress management and acceptance and commitment therapy on the quality of life and fatigue of caregivers of patients with cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Supportive Care in Cancer, 34(10), Article 1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-026-11205-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s00520-026-11205-9

Keywords: cancer caregivers, acceptance and commitment therapy, cognitive-behavioral stress management, quality of life, fatigue, randomized controlled trial, psychotherapy, supportive care, mental health, clinical trial, comparison, efficacy