MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280544774 · doi:10.1111/1346-8138.16435

A randomized controlled trial on a novel behavioral treatment for individuals with skin picking and other body‐focused repetitive behaviors

2022· article· en· W4280544774 on OpenAlexaff
Steffen Moritz, Danielle Penney, Sarah Weidinger, Tana Gabbert, Stella Schmotz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Dermatology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPsychiatrySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body-focused repetitive behaviors (BFRBs), such as skin picking/dermatillomania, trichotillomania, lip-cheek biting, and nail biting, are a frequent but underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder at the crossroads of dermatology and psychiatry.1 The disorder is characterized by the compulsive manipulation of the skin, nails and/or hair, which the patient is unable to resist, frequently resulting in severe impairment. While no medication to date has been approved to treat BFRBs, behavioral treatments, especially habit reversal training (HRT), decoupling, and decoupling in sensu, have demonstrated some efficacy (the techniques are described here2). This is the first study examining whether amalgamating these three techniques into a single self-help manual reduces BFRB symptoms. This study was set up as a controlled online trial (preregistration: DRKS00024525, local ethics approval LPEK-0254) wherein 279 individuals with BFRBs (female 66%, age 32.9 years, SD 11.53; lifetime prevalence, multiple disorders could be endorsed: skin picking 68.1%, trichotillomania 28%, nail biting 52%, lip-cheek biting 52.7%), recruited via social media, were randomly assigned (blind/unbiased 1:1 allocation) to either a wait list control group (n = 140) or an experimental group (n = 139) receiving a self-help manual entitled Free from BFRB (free access at www.uke.de/free-from-bfrb). The manual teaches HRT, decoupling, and decoupling in sensu following brief psychoeducation on the symptoms and consequences of BFRBs (see Appendix S1). Participants, aged between 18 and 75 years with no history of schizophrenia or acute suicidality, were assessed online 6 weeks apart. The primary outcome was the Generic BFRB Scale 8 (GBS-8).2 The WHOQOL-BREF global quality-of-life item (QoL)3 and the PHQ-94 represented secondary outcomes (see description in the Appendix S1). Participants in the intervention condition had to practice the self-help techniques independently. A total of 535 participants were excluded blind to results, mainly due to premature cancellation of the pre-assessment. Groups did not differ on any baseline characteristics (demographic variables, psychopathology, lifetime prevalence of different BFRBs). The expectation–maximization algorithm was used for the intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. At post-assessment, the experimental group significantly improved on the GBS-8 with respect to all types of analyses (group assignments were made according self-report data) at a medium-to-large effect size (Figure 1; ITT: p < 0.001, d = 0.666; complete cases (CC, nTreatment = 73): p < 0.001, d = 0.613; per-protocol (PP) sample who had at least read the Free from BFRB manual (PP read, nTreatment = 70): p < 0.001, d = 0.665; PP sample who practiced the techniques in the manual (PP practiced, nTreatment = 62): p < 0.001, d = 0.775). Likewise, QoL improved significantly for all analyses at a small-to-medium effect size (ITT: p < 0.001, d = 0.492; CC: p = 0.008, d = 0.415; PP read: p < 0.006, d = 0.438; PP practiced: p < 0.009, d = 0.432). Depression scores improved at trend level for the CC and PP read analyses and yielded significance for the ITT and PP practiced analyses at a mainly small effect size (ITT: p = 0.042, d = 0.246; CC: p = 0.071, d = 0.283; PP read: p = 0.059, d = 0.299; PP practiced: p = 0.030, d = 0.357). We also assessed the subjective effectiveness of the full manual at post-assessment via self-report (based on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, CSQ), which was good (“I would use the manual again”, slight to complete endorsement 98.4%, mostly or completely 77.4%; “I would recommend to friend with similar problems”: 88.4%, 79.1%; “My BFRBs decreased through the use of the program”: 77.4%, 22.6%). Furthermore, of those who completed the trial, 23.3% in the experimental group showed improvement greater than 35% on the GBS-8 (wait list control: 8.3%, p = 0.007; 25% improvement: 43.8 vs. 13.5%, p < 0.001). The test–retest reliability of the GBS-8 was r = 0.68, signifying satisfactory internal validity. Study limitations include a lack of verified diagnoses and missing follow-up data. The noncompletion rate was 39%. This study demonstrates the efficacy of a manual combining three behavioral self-help treatments to reduce the symptoms of BFRBs. Results are encouraging given those with BFRBs are often reluctant to seek professional help. Future work should assess moderators (i.e. subgroups that benefit from treatment), target comorbid emotional problems (e.g. depression), and consider treatment of the sensory irritations giving rise to BFRBs, all of which may augment efficacy. Appendix S1 Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of DermatologySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207