Cited by 185Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Why do clinicians exclude anxious clients from exposure therapy?

Meyer, Johanna M., Farrell, Nicholas R., Kemp, Joshua J., Blakey, Shannon M., Deacon, Brett J.·2014·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Despite research demonstrating the effectiveness of exposure therapy for pathological anxiety, this treatment is underutilized by clinicians. Anecdotal evidence and clinical experience suggest that therapists who possess reservations about exposure therapy tend to exclude clients from this treatment based on client characteristics believed to predict worse response. When exceptions are made based on characteristics that do not reliably predict poor outcomes, clients face the opportunity cost associated with investment in less effective treatments. The present investigation assessed therapists' likelihood of excluding clients from exposure due to different client and therapist characteristics. Exposure therapists (N = 182) completed an online survey that included the Therapist Beliefs about Exposure Scale, Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3, and the Broken Leg Exception Scale (BLES), a novel measure assessing the likelihood of excluding clients from exposure based on 25 different client characteristics. The BLES demonstrated good psychometric properties. Client characteristics most likely to result in exclusion from exposure therapy were comorbid psychosis, emotional fragility, and reluctance to participate in exposure. Greater likelihood of excluding clients from exposure was associated with higher therapist anxiety sensitivity and endorsement of negative beliefs about exposure therapy. Clinical and training implications of these findings are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2014.01.004

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 42 · Cited by 185

Authors
Meyer, J. M., Farrell, N. R., Kemp, J. J., Blakey, S. M., & Deacon, B. J.
Affiliations
University of Wyoming (US)
Corresponding author
Deacon, Brett J.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
54
Pages
49-53
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001749445
Cited by
185
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 1
FWCI
16.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
exposure therapy, anxiety disorders, therapist beliefs, anxiety sensitivity, emotional vulnerability, treatment underuse, therapist training
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Patient Selection

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