CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Patient Utilization of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for OCD

Open access
Mancebo, Maria C., Eisen, Jane L., Sibrava, Nicholas J., Dyck, Ingrid R., Rasmussen, Steven A.·2011·Behavior Therapy
DOI 10.1016/j.beth.2010.10.002PMC PMC3857709
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The current study examined utilization of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) by individuals receiving treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Participants were 202 adults with primary DSM-IV OCD who enrolled in a longitudinal, observational study of the course of OCD and completed 2 years of annual follow-up interviews using the Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation. One hundred twenty participants reported that a mental health professional recommended CBT for their OCD symptoms at some point during the 2-year follow-up period. One quarter (n = 31) of these participants did not initiate CBT despite receiving a treatment recommendation. Thirty-one percent of the 89 participants who entered CBT endorsed dropping out of CBT prematurely and less than one third received an adequate "dose" of CBT sessions. Self-reported CBT drop-out rates were significantly greater than attrition rates reported in clinical trials using intensive schedules of exposure and ritual prevention (EX/RP). Perceived environmental barriers and fears regarding treatment participation were the most frequently endorsed reasons for not participating or dropping out of CBT. Despite its efficacy for OCD, many individuals with clinically significant symptoms fail to initiate CBT when recommended by a mental health professional, receive treatments that are less intensive than those used in clinical trials, or drop out of treatment prematurely. Financial costs of CBT, difficulty attending sessions, and fears regarding treatment are significant barriers to initiating and completing therapy.

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 · 10.1016/j.beth.2010.10.002

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • One-quarter of patients with OCD who received the recommendation to start CBT with ERP did not follow the suggestion.

    “For example, Mancebo, Eisen, Sibrava, Dyck, and Rasmussen [38] found that one-quarter of patients with OCD who received the recommendation to start CBT with ERP did not follow the suggestion.”

    From Metacognitive Training for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Results section reports that 26% (31 of 120) of participants who received a CBT recommendation did not initiate therapy. The recommendation is described as CBT, not specifically CBT with exposure and ritual prevention (ERP), so the ERP detail is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 1996 Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders–Patient edition (SCID/IP Version 2.0) New York Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mancebo, M. C., Eisen, J. L., Sibrava, N. J., Dyck, I. R., & Rasmussen, S. A.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Mancebo, Maria C.
ORCID
Venue
Behavior Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
399-412
ISSN
0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.beth.2010.10.002
PMC
PMC3857709
OpenAlex
W1981818131
Cited by
107
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH060218)
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 › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment utilization, treatment discontinuation, treatment initiation, exposure and response prevention, barriers to treatment, perceived barriers, treatment costs, therapy attendance
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Male, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Compliance, Patient Dropouts, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Process Assessment, Health Care, Benchmarking, Self Report

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