Samuel D. Spencer , Jordan T. Stiede , Andrew D. Wiese , Andrew G. Guzick , Matti Cervin , Dean McKay , Eric A. Storch
{"title":"Things that make you go Hmm: Myths and misconceptions within cognitive-behavioral treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder","authors":"Samuel D. Spencer , Jordan T. Stiede , Andrew D. Wiese , Andrew G. Guzick , Matti Cervin , Dean McKay , Eric A. Storch","doi":"10.1016/j.jocrd.2023.100805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The past four decades have yielded a robust body of evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) as a gold-standard treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) across the lifespan. Exposure and response prevention (E/RP) has been identified as a key component of this approach. Despite robust research support for CBT with E/RP, several myths and misconceptions continue to proliferate in both research and practice settings. Such myths and misconceptions are concerning, as they lack empirical basis, may hinder widespread dissemination and implementation of CBT for OCD, and run contrary to the practice of evidence-based psychological medicine. Focusing on the importance of promoting evidence-based practice and generative </span>clinical science, the present review article synthesizes relevant research within the field of treatments for OCD to address the following myths/misconceptions: (a) uncertainty exists concerning the evidence base supporting CBT for OCD, (b) E/RP attrition and dropout rates are unacceptably high due to excessive risk and perceived patient intolerability, and (c) alternative treatments for OCD need to be expeditiously developed due to major limitations of E/RP. Recommendations for future research and clinical dissemination and implementation to further advance a generative clinical science of OCD treatment are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48902,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders","volume":"37 ","pages":"Article 100805"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10168610/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221136492300026X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The past four decades have yielded a robust body of evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) as a gold-standard treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) across the lifespan. Exposure and response prevention (E/RP) has been identified as a key component of this approach. Despite robust research support for CBT with E/RP, several myths and misconceptions continue to proliferate in both research and practice settings. Such myths and misconceptions are concerning, as they lack empirical basis, may hinder widespread dissemination and implementation of CBT for OCD, and run contrary to the practice of evidence-based psychological medicine. Focusing on the importance of promoting evidence-based practice and generative clinical science, the present review article synthesizes relevant research within the field of treatments for OCD to address the following myths/misconceptions: (a) uncertainty exists concerning the evidence base supporting CBT for OCD, (b) E/RP attrition and dropout rates are unacceptably high due to excessive risk and perceived patient intolerability, and (c) alternative treatments for OCD need to be expeditiously developed due to major limitations of E/RP. Recommendations for future research and clinical dissemination and implementation to further advance a generative clinical science of OCD treatment are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders (JOCRD) is an international journal that publishes high quality research and clinically-oriented articles dealing with all aspects of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and related conditions (OC spectrum disorders; e.g., trichotillomania, hoarding, body dysmorphic disorder). The journal invites studies of clinical and non-clinical (i.e., student) samples of all age groups from the fields of psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience, and other medical and health sciences. The journal''s broad focus encompasses classification, assessment, psychological and psychiatric treatment, prevention, psychopathology, neurobiology and genetics. Clinical reports (descriptions of innovative treatment methods) and book reviews on all aspects of OCD-related disorders will be considered, as will theoretical and review articles that make valuable contributions.
Suitable topics for manuscripts include:
-The boundaries of OCD and relationships with OC spectrum disorders
-Validation of assessments of obsessive-compulsive and related phenomena
-OCD symptoms in diverse social and cultural contexts
-Studies of neurobiological and genetic factors in OCD and related conditions
-Experimental and descriptive psychopathology and epidemiological studies
-Studies on relationships among cognitive and behavioral variables in OCD and related disorders
-Interpersonal aspects of OCD and related disorders
-Evaluation of psychological and psychiatric treatment and prevention programs, and predictors of outcome.