Three-Year Outcome for Responders and Non-Responders of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aim of the present study (part of the NordLOTS) was to examine the long-term outcome of a stepwise treatment for childhood OCD with initial CBT and a comparison between extended treatment with either continued CBT or sertraline for non-responders to initial CBT. Further, the aim was to investigate whether duration of treatment is an important indicator of three-year outcome. Methods This long-term follow-up study included 269 participants (48% males) from the NordLOTS sample. All participants were followed over three years (6, 12, 24 and 36 months) after initial CBT, symptom severity was repeatedly assessed with the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). Primary outcome measure was the CY-BOCS, treatment response and remission were defined as CY-BOCS total scores ≤15 and ≤10, respectively. Analyses were conducted according to intent-to-treat principles with linear mixed-effects (LME) model. Results At three-year follow-up 73% (n = 196) were free from OCD or in clinical remission, and another 17% (n = 46) responders to treatment. The mean CY-BOCS total score at baseline of 24.7 decreased to 5.0 after three years with a mean decrease of 5.9 from after treatment to three-year follow-up. Duration of treatment did not influence the symptom level at three-year follow-up and no significant difference was found (p = .99) between the different extended treatments. Conclusion Findings suggest a long-term durability of gains made by manualized CBT, and if needed, extended treatment with CBT or augmentation with sertraline for pediatric OCD and symptoms decreased even further during the three-year period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".