Cited by 55Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Is mindfulness‐based therapy an effective intervention for obsessive–intrusive thoughts: a case series

Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan, Bocci, Laura, Thorne, Kirsty, Herlihy, Jane·2010·Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

Abstract

Despite the efficacy of cognitive‐behavioural interventions in improving the experience of obsessions and compulsions, some people do not benefit from this approach. The present research uses a case series design to establish whether mindfulness‐based therapy could benefit those experiencing obsessive–intrusive thoughts by targeting thought–action fusion and thought suppression. Three participants received a relaxation control intervention followed by a six‐session mindfulness‐based intervention which emphasized daily practice. Following therapy all participants demonstrated reductions in Yale‐Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale scores to below clinical levels, with two participants maintaining this at follow‐up. Qualitative analysis of post‐therapy feedback suggested that mindfulness skills such as observation, awareness and acceptance were seen as helpful in managing thought–action fusion and suppression. Despite being limited by small participant numbers, these results suggest that mindfulness may be beneficial to some people experiencing intrusive unwanted thoughts and that further research could establish the possible efficacy of this approach in larger samples. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message: • Preliminary evidence is provided for the use of mindfulness‐based therapy with obsessive intrusive thoughts. • Mindfulness processes may be useful in the management of thought‐action fusion and thought suppression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpp.665

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 77 · Cited by 55

Authors
Wilkinson‐Tough, M., Bocci, L., Thorne, K., & Herlihy, J.
Corresponding author
Wilkinson‐Tough, Megan
Venue
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12-29
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
250-268
ISSN
  • 1063-3995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0879
OpenAlex
W2071456410
Cited by
55
References
77
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Wellcome Trust (WT999997)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, thought-action fusion, thought suppression, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Awareness, Behavior Therapy, Combined Modality Therapy, Defense Mechanisms, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Personality Inventory, Pilot Projects, Practice, Psychological, Psychometrics, Relaxation Therapy, Thinking, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review