Things that make you go Hmm: Myths and misconceptions within cognitive-behavioral treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jocrd.2023.100805
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 ,&nbsp;Jordan T. Stiede ,&nbsp;Andrew D. Wiese ,&nbsp;Andrew G. Guzick ,&nbsp;Matti Cervin ,&nbsp;Dean McKay ,&nbsp;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":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"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":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221136492300026X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","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.

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
让你走的事情嗯:强迫症认知行为治疗中的神话和误解。
在过去的四十年里,有大量证据支持认知行为疗法(CBT)作为强迫症(OCD)终身治疗的金标准疗法的疗效和有效性。暴露和反应预防(E/RP)已被确定为该方法的关键组成部分。尽管E/RP的CBT得到了强有力的研究支持,但在研究和实践环境中,一些神话和误解仍在激增。这些神话和误解令人担忧,因为它们缺乏经验基础,可能会阻碍强迫症CBT的广泛传播和实施,并与循证心理医学的实践背道而驰。围绕促进循证实践和生成性临床科学的重要性,本综述文章综合了强迫症治疗领域的相关研究,以解决以下神话/误解:(a)支持强迫症CBT的证据基础存在不确定性,(b)由于过度的风险和患者的不耐受性,E/RP的流失率和辍学率高得令人无法接受,以及(c)由于E/RP的主要局限性,需要迅速开发强迫症的替代治疗方法。讨论了未来研究、临床传播和实施的建议,以进一步推进强迫症治疗的生成性临床科学。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
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