Telephone-Administered Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure with response prevention and cognitive behavior therapy are widely recognized as effective treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Unfortunately, many people with obsessive-compulsive disorder--particularly those living in rural areas--do not have access to therapists providing these treatments. Accordingly, we investigated the efficacy of telephone-administered cognitive behavior therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Two open trials are reported, for a total of 33 people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (without major depression). The first trial consisted of 12 weeks on a waiting list followed by 12 weeks of treatment (delayed treatment). The second trial consisted of 12 weeks of immediate treatment. Obsessive-compulsive symptoms did not change during the waiting period. Symptoms declined from pre- to post-treatment, with gains maintained at 12-week follow-up. For the pooled sample our pre-to-post-treatment effect size was as large or larger than those obtained in other studies of reduced contact treatment, and similar to those of face-to-face exposure with response prevention. Our proportion of treatment dropouts tended to be lower than those of other reduced contact interventions. The results suggest that telephone-administered cognitive behavior therapy is effective and well-tolerated, at least for people with obsessive-compulsive disorder without major depression. It remains to be seen whether this treatment is safe and effective when comorbid major depression is present.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it