Fighting OCD together: An experimental study of the effectiveness and acceptability of seeking and receiving emotional support for OCD

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101987
Chiara Causier , Paul Salkovskis
{"title":"Fighting OCD together: An experimental study of the effectiveness and acceptability of seeking and receiving emotional support for OCD","authors":"Chiara Causier ,&nbsp;Paul Salkovskis","doi":"10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Excessive reassurance-seeking in OCD has been linked to the maintenance of OCD, functioning as a type of checking ritual. Current treatments recommend the imposition of the extinction of seeking and providing reassurance; however, this is not well tolerated. Although it has been suggested that the provision of support may provide a more helpful alternative, there is no empirical evidence for this. In the present study, 36 participants with OCD engaged with two personalised semi-idiographic scenarios in which they imagined seeking and receiving reassurance and seeking and receiving emotional support in counterbalanced order. The primary outcome measure was anticipated urge to seek reassurance, which was found to significantly decrease in the imagined support condition relative to the imagined reassurance condition regardless of order of presentation. Emotional support was perceived as significantly more acceptable when compared to imagining reassurance in terms of higher ratings of perceived helpfulness in managing emotions, feelings of calmness and closeness, and the sense that they were fighting OCD together. These findings provide preliminary evidence for the value of encouraging the seeking and giving of emotional support as an alternative to reassurance. Implications for clinical work and further research are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48198,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","volume":"86 ","pages":"Article 101987"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000466/pdfft?md5=26db366420d9b66343583b8544943764&pid=1-s2.0-S0005791624000466-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000466","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

Excessive reassurance-seeking in OCD has been linked to the maintenance of OCD, functioning as a type of checking ritual. Current treatments recommend the imposition of the extinction of seeking and providing reassurance; however, this is not well tolerated. Although it has been suggested that the provision of support may provide a more helpful alternative, there is no empirical evidence for this. In the present study, 36 participants with OCD engaged with two personalised semi-idiographic scenarios in which they imagined seeking and receiving reassurance and seeking and receiving emotional support in counterbalanced order. The primary outcome measure was anticipated urge to seek reassurance, which was found to significantly decrease in the imagined support condition relative to the imagined reassurance condition regardless of order of presentation. Emotional support was perceived as significantly more acceptable when compared to imagining reassurance in terms of higher ratings of perceived helpfulness in managing emotions, feelings of calmness and closeness, and the sense that they were fighting OCD together. These findings provide preliminary evidence for the value of encouraging the seeking and giving of emotional support as an alternative to reassurance. Implications for clinical work and further research are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
共同对抗强迫症:强迫症患者寻求和接受情感支持的有效性和可接受性实验研究
强迫症患者过度寻求安慰与强迫症的维持有关,它是一种检查仪式。目前的治疗方法建议强制患者停止寻求和提供保证,但这种方法的耐受性并不好。虽然有人认为提供支持可能会提供更有帮助的替代方法,但目前还没有实证证据证明这一点。在本研究中,36 名患有强迫症的参与者参与了两个个性化的半图像情景,在这两个情景中,他们按照平衡的顺序想象寻求和接受安慰,以及寻求和接受情感支持。主要的结果测量指标是预期寻求安慰的冲动,结果发现,无论呈现的顺序如何,在想象支持的条件下,寻求安慰的冲动相对于想象安慰的条件下会显著减少。与想象中的安慰相比,情感支持的可接受性明显更高,这体现在对情绪管理的帮助、平静感和亲密感的评价更高,以及他们共同对抗强迫症的感觉上。这些发现初步证明了鼓励寻求和给予情感支持以替代安慰的价值。本文还讨论了对临床工作和进一步研究的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The publication of the book Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition (1958) by the co-founding editor of this Journal, Joseph Wolpe, marked a major change in the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. The book used principles from empirical behavioral science to explain psychopathological phenomena and the resulting explanations were critically tested and used to derive effective treatments. The second half of the 20th century saw this rigorous scientific approach come to fruition. Experimental approaches to psychopathology, in particular those used to test conditioning theories and cognitive theories, have steadily expanded, and experimental analysis of processes characterising and maintaining mental disorders have become an established research area.
期刊最新文献
The effect of feedback in attention training on Attention Bias to Threat in individuals with Sluggish Cognitive Tempo Examining the causal effects of social exclusion on shame and dissociative detachment Editorial Board Neurophysiological effects of cognitive behavioral therapy in social anxiety: An ERP study using a dot-probe task A multilevel examination of an inhibitory retrieval approach to exposure: Differentiating the unique and combined effects of multiple-context and multiple-stimulus cues
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1