Cited by 108Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting adoption of exposure therapy in a randomized controlled dissemination trial

Open access

Abstract

The present study examined organizational, client, and therapist characteristics as predictors of use of and proficiency in exposure therapy (ET) after training. Therapists naïve to ET (N=181) were randomized to: (1) online training (OLT), (2) OLT plus motivational enhancement (ME), or (3) OLT+ME plus a learning community. Twelve weeks after training, self-reported use of ET in clinical practice was high (87.5%) and therapists demonstrated moderate clinical proficiency. Use of ET was predicted by therapist degree, self-efficacy, and knowledge. Clinical proficiency was predicted by therapist anxiety sensitivity, attitudes, and knowledge, as well as organizational and client barriers. Several of these effects were moderated by training condition, indicating that therapists who received more comprehensive training were less impacted by barriers and showed enhanced adoption in the presence of facilitating factors. Overall, these results suggest that the primary barriers to the adoption of ET are therapist, not organizational or client, factors.

Overview

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.janxdis.2013.02.006

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Harned, M. S., Dimeff, L. A., Woodcock, E. A., & Contreras, I.
Affiliations
Behavioral Tech Research, Inc. (US)
Corresponding author
Harned, Melanie S.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
754-762
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2145064735
Cited by
108
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7
FWCI
13.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R44MH082474)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
exposure therapy, treatment adoption, dissemination, therapist training, online training, motivation enhancement, learning communities, therapist self-efficacy, anxiety sensitivity, clinical competence, anxiety disorders, organizational factors, client factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Clinical Competence, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Patients, Organizational Culture, Self Efficacy, Internet

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