Cited by 35Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The relative efficacy and efficiency of single- and multi-session exposure therapies for specific phobia: A meta-analysis

Odgers, Katarzyna, Kershaw, Kelly A., Li, Sophie H., Graham, Bronwyn M.·2022·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Exposure therapy is the preferred treatment for specific phobia (SP), with evidence supporting its efficacy whether delivered over multiple sessions or as a single session, such as One-Session Treatment. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficiency and effectiveness of single- and multi-session exposure for SP. PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane were systematically searched for peer-reviewed articles reporting the effects of multi-session (k = 30) and/or single-session (k = 55) in vivo exposure on SP symptoms in clinical populations (n = 1758 participants). A random-effects model was used to synthesise and compare the pre-post treatment effects (Hedges' g) on approach behaviour and self-reported SP symptoms. Mean total treatment time was significantly longer for multi-session exposure than for single-session. There were no significant differences in the pooled effect sizes of single-session and multi-session exposure at post-treatment and follow-up assessments; effect sizes were large for all outcomes. Phobia subtype significantly moderated the effect size for both treatment approaches, although the direction of association differed according to the outcome measures. Results suggest no evidence for differences in the effectiveness of single- and multi-session exposure, but single-session is more time efficient. These outcomes suggest that policies to facilitate access to single-session exposure would be beneficial.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2022.104203

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Odgers, K., Kershaw, K. A., Li, S. H., & Graham, B. M.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Graham, Bronwyn M.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
159
Pages
104203
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4306958874
Cited by
35
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of New South Wales
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
specific phobia, exposure therapy, single-session intervention, in vivo exposure, treatment efficacy, access to mental health care
MeSH terms
Humans, Implosive Therapy, Phobic Disorders, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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