Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy Staff Publications
Publication Date
4-1-2023
Journal
Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders
DOI
10.1016/j.jocrd.2023.100805
PMID
37193037
PMCID
PMC10168610
PubMedCentral® Posted Date
4-1-2024
PubMedCentral® Full Text Version
Author MSS
Published Open-Access
yes
Keywords
Cognitive-behavioral therapy, exposure and response prevention, obsessive-compulsive disorder, misconceptions, myths
Abstract
The past four decades have yielded a robust body of evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) as a gold-standard treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) across the lifespan. Exposure and response prevention (E/RP) has been identified as a key component of this approach. Despite robust research support for CBT with E/RP, several myths and misconceptions continue to proliferate in both research and practice settings. Such myths and misconceptions are concerning, as they lack empirical basis, may hinder widespread dissemination and implementation of CBT for OCD, and run contrary to the practice of evidence-based psychological medicine. Focusing on the importance of promoting evidence-based practice and generative clinical science, the present review article synthesizes relevant research within the field of treatments for OCD to address the following myths / misconceptions: (a) uncertainty exists concerning the evidence base supporting CBT for OCD, (b) E/RP attrition and dropout rates are unacceptably high due to excessive risk and perceived patient intolerability, and (c) alternative treatments for OCD need to be expeditiously developed due to major limitations of E/RP. Recommendations for future research and clinical dissemination and implementation to further advance a generative clinical science of OCD treatment are discussed.
Included in
Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Commons, Health Policy Commons, Medical Sciences Commons