Cited by 146Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

One versus five sessions of exposure in the treatment of flying phobia

Öst, Lars-Göran, Brandberg, Mats, Alm, Tomas·1997·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Twenty-eight patients with flying phobia, fulfilling the DSM-IV criteria for specific phobia, were assessed with behavioral, and self-report measures. They were randomly assigned to two treatment conditions: (1) 1-session, or (2) 5-sessions of exposure and cognitive restructuring. The first condition consisted of a single 3 hr session of massed treatment, and the second condition of 6 hr of gradual treatment. Treatment was done individually by very experienced therapists. The results showed that the two treatment conditions did equally well and there were no differences between them. At post-treatment 93% of the 1-session group and 79% of the 5-session group managed to take an unaccompanied return fight. At the 1-yr follow-up assessment the effects were maintained on all measures except the behavioral test; in both groups 64% of the patients took the flight. The most plausible reason for this deterioration is that during the follow-up year the subjects who relapsed didn't have the opportunity to fly as a job requirement with the employer paying the expenses. The implications of these results are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0005-7967(97)00077-6

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • One-session treatment for specific phobias yields outcomes comparable to five sessions, with gains maintained up to four years.

    “One-session treatment of flying phobia, blood-injection-injury phobia, spider phobia, claustrophobia, and other specific phobias has shown comparable outcomes to five-session treatment, with clinically significant improvements maintained for follow-up periods as long as four years (Öst, Alm, Brandberg, & Breitholtz, 2001; Öst, Brandberg, & Alm, 1997; Öst, Hellström, & Kåver, 1992).”

    From Enhancing Inhibitory Learning: The Utility of Variability in Exposure (2019) · cites this paper as Öst, Brandberg, & Alm, 1997

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Öst, L.-G., Brandberg, M., & Alm, T.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Öst, Lars-Göran
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-11
Volume
35
Issue
11
Pages
987-996
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014732760
Cited by
146
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
specific phobia, exposure therapy, cognitive restructuring, single-session intervention, treatment duration, relapse, maintenance of treatment effects, return flight
MeSH terms
Adult, Aircraft, Analysis of Variance, Desensitization, Psychologic, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Phobic Disorders, Prospective Studies, Travel, 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