Cited by 79Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Home Self-Assessment and Self-Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Using a Manual and a Computer-Conducted Telephone Interview: Replication of a U.K.-U.S. Study

Bachofen, Martin, Nakagawa, Akiko, Marks, Isaac M., Park, Je-Min, Greist, John H., Baer, Lee, Wenzel, Keith W., Parkin, J. Richard +1 more·1999·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This open study replicates and extends previous pilot work with BT STEPS, a self-therapy system to assess and treat obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) through exposure and ritual prevention. METHOD: 21 OCD patients entered this open trial, using a self-guiding manual and any Touch-Tone telephone to access computer-driven interviews via an Interactive Voice Response system. The patients also used the system to rate progress on rating scales. RESULTS: The results support those of the previous open study. Of the 21 patients, 16 (76%) completed self-assessment over a mean of 21 days. Of these, 10 patients (48%) went on to do 2 or more exposure and ritual prevention sessions over a mean of 64 days; they improved significantly on OCD symptoms, as much as is usual with serotonin reuptake inhibitor medication, and in mood and work/social adjustment. Improvement was predicted by baseline motivation and by rapid completion of self-assessment with BT STEPS, even though self-assessment alone was not therapeutic. CONCLUSION: The significant improvement in the intent-to-treat analysis was due to the subgroup of patients (48% of those who began BT STEPS) who went beyond self-assessment to do exposure and ritual prevention self-therapy at home guided by BT STEPS. A controlled trial is now needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.v60n0807

Cites

11 of 11 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
Bachofen, M., Nakagawa, A., Marks, I. M., Park, J.-M., Greist, J. H., Baer, L., Wenzel, K. W., Parkin, J. R., & Dottl, S. L.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
1999-08-15
Volume
60
Issue
8
Pages
545-549
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1991634179
Cited by
79
References
11
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, self-assessment, self-medication, exposure and response prevention, interactive voice response, telephone-delivered therapy, medication adherence, motivation
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Aversive Therapy, Behavior Therapy, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Manuals as Topic, Middle Aged, Motivation, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Self Care, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Treatment Outcome, Remote Consultation

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