Background: Adults with long-term neurological conditions can face complex challenges including anxiety and depression. Emerging research suggests the utility of third-wave approaches (the third development of psychotherapies) in working transdiagnostically with these difficulties.

Aims: This systematic review sought to summarise and appraise the quality of published empirical studies using third-wave therapies such as Compassion Focused Therapy; Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy or Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction.

Method: Review procedures followed PRISMA guidelines, with 437 abstracts screened, 24 full-text articles retrieved and 19 studies found to meet inclusion criteria. Six out of seven randomised studies had unclear or high risk of bias, whilst the majority of non-randomised studies were considered moderate quality.

Results: Overall, studies reported a statistically significant reduction in emotional distress. Of the 13 studies that used model-specific process measures, 10 found statistically significant improvements in transdiagnostic factors.

Discussion: The findings indicate that third-wave therapies show promise in addressing transdiagnostic difficulties within neurological conditions. A number of methodological and conceptual issues for the included studies were highlighted during the quality appraisal process. Clinical implications include consideration of intervention length and use of outcome measures. Research implications are discussed by considering the progressive stages of development for behavioural treatments.

Objectives: The present study explored the level of self-and informant reported executive functioning in daily living using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) in a large sample comprising healthy adults and patient cohorts with neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. The relationship to neuropsychological test performance and self-reported emotional distress was explored, as well as the applicability of U.S. normative data. Methods: Scores on the self- and informant reported BRIEF-A are presented, along with scores on standardized cognitive tests, and on rating scales of self-reported emotional distress in a Norwegian healthy comparison group (n=115), patients with severe traumatic brain injury (n=125), focal frontal lobe damage (n=29), focal cerebellar lesion (n=24), Parkinson’s disease (n=42), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (n=34), type II bipolar disorder (n=21), and borderline personality disorder (n=18). Results: Strong associations were observed between the BRIEF-A and emotional distress in both the healthy group and in neurological groups, while no or weak relationships with IQ and performance-based tests of executive function were seen. The relationship between BRIEF-A and emotional distress was weaker in the neuropsychiatric patient groups, despite high symptom load in both domains. Healthy participants tended to have BRIEF-A scores 1/2–3/4 SD below the U.S. normative mean of T score=50. Conclusions: The study demonstrates the need to interpret BRIEF-A results within a broad differential diagnostic context, where measures of psychological distress are included in addition to neuropsychological tests. Uncertainty about the appropriateness of U.S. normative data in non-U.S. countries adds to the need for interpretive caution. (JINS, 2016, 22, 682–694)