Cited by 48Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Serious negative consequences associated with exposure and response prevention for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A survey of therapist attitudes and experiences

Open access
Schneider, Sophie C., Knott, Lindsey, Cepeda, Sandra L., Hana, Lynn M., McIngvale, Elizabeth, Goodman, Wayne K., Storch, Eric A.·2020·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Many therapists are reluctant to conduct exposure and response prevention (ERP) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Negative beliefs about the safety and tolerability of ERP are common, especially for harm-related OCD symptoms. The study examined the nature and frequency of ERP-related serious negative consequences (SNC) and therapist attitudes and experiences providing ERP for harm-related OCD. METHODS: An anonymous survey was completed by 277 therapists with experience treating OCD using ERP. Questions assessed clinical experiences of harm-related exposures, the nature of SNC, and concerns and clinical considerations regarding ERP. RESULTS: Therapist's willingness to treat harm-related OCD was high. SNCs were reported for 6 clients (per-client risk: adults 0.05%, youth 0.01%) and 13 therapists (per therapist risk 4.73%, therapist per-year risk 0.004%). Qualitative analysis identified themes relating to the conduct of treatment, specific exposure types, professional issues, and negative perceptions of ERP. CONCLUSION: SNC associated with ERP for OCD are rare and primarily represent unintended secondary consequences of OCD or misunderstandings regarding the process and rationale behind ERP. Improving access to ERP will require good communication with clients, families, and other professionals regarding the rationale and safety of ERP.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.23000

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 broad measure of side effects allows comparison of negative event rates of different therapies but prevents disentangling side effects of exposure from other treatment components and does not reveal specific side effects of exposure.

    “This allows to compare negative event rates of different therapies but prevents disentangling the side effects of exposure from that of other treatment components (e.g., cognitive preparation) and does not reveal specific side effects of exposure”

    From Effective—and Tolerable: Acceptance and Side Effects of Intensified Exposure for Anxiety Disorders (2023) · cites this paper as Schneider et al., 2020

    The paper does not describe a measure for comparing negative-event rates across different therapies. Contrary to the claim that it does not reveal specific effects of exposure, Table 2 in the Discussion describes consequences associated with particular exposure types, including a car crash during a driving exposure. The Conclusion also reports serious-negative-consequence rates by exposure type (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • One recent survey examined therapist-reported severe side effects of exposure for obsessive-compulsive disorder, reported in less than 0.01% of treatments.

    “One recent survey examined therapist-reported severe side effects of exposure for obsessive-compulsive disorder (Schneider et al., 2020), which were reported in less than 0.01% of treatments.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schneider, S. C., Knott, L., Cepeda, S. L., Hana, L. M., McIngvale, E., Goodman, W. K., & Storch, E. A.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • The Houston OCD ProgramHouston Texas
Corresponding author
Schneider, Sophie C.
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-02-12
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
418-428
ISSN
  • 1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6394
OpenAlex
W3005638277
Cited by
48
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
exposure and response prevention, obsessive-compulsive disorder, therapist attitudes, therapist experience, treatment safety, customer communication, access to treatment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude, Clinical Competence, Emotions, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Physician-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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