Psychotherapies and digital interventions for OCD in adults: What do we know, what do we need still to explore?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite significant advances in the understanding and treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), current treatment options are limited in terms of efficacy for symptom remission. Thus, assessing the potential role of iterative or alternate psychotherapies is important. Also, the potential role of digital technologies to enhance the accessibility of these therapies, should not be underestimated. We also need to embrace the idea of a more personalized treatment choice, being cognisant of clinical, genetic and neuroimaging predictors of treatment response. PROCEDURES: Non-systematic review of current literature on emerging psychological and digital therapies for OCD, as well as of potential biomarkers of treatment response. FINDINGS: A number of 'third wave' therapies (e.g., Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) have an emerging and encouraging evidence base in OCD. Other approaches entail employment of elements of other psychotherapies such as Dialectical Behaviour Therapy; or trauma-focussed therapies such as Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing, and Imagery Rescripting and Narrative Therapy. Further strategies include Danger Ideation Reduction Therapy and Habit Reversal. For these latter approaches, large-scale randomised controlled trials are largely lacking, and the precise role of these therapies in treating people with OCD, remains to be clarified. A concentrated 4-day program (the Bergen program) has shown promising short- and long-term results. Exercise, music, and art therapy have not been adequately tested in people with OCD, but may have an adjunctive role. Digital technologies are being actively investigated for enhancing reach and efficacy of psychological therapies for OCD. Biomarkers, including genetic and neuroimaging, are starting to point to a future with more 'personalised medicine informed' treatment strategizing for OCD. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of potential psychological options for the treatment of people with OCD who do not respond adequately to exposure/response prevention or cognitive behaviour therapy. Adjunctive exercise, music, and art therapy might be useful, albeit the evidence base for these is very small. Consideration should be given to different ways of delivering such interventions, including group-based, concentrated, inpatient, or with outreach, where appropriate. Digital technologies are an emerging field with a number of potential applications for aiding the treatment of OCD. Biomarkers for treatment response determination have much potential capacity and deserve further empirical testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".