Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-jhrpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-24T04:32:20.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive–behavioural therapy delivery formats for obsessive–compulsive disorder: network meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2025

Yingying Wang Open the ORCID record for Yingying Wang [Opens in a new window] ,
Clara Miguel Open the ORCID record for Clara Miguel [Opens in a new window] ,
Marketa Ciharova Open the ORCID record for Marketa Ciharova [Opens in a new window] ,
Arpana Amarnath ,
Jingyuan Lin ,
Ruiying Zhao ,
Marieke B. J. Toffolo ,
Mathias Harrer ,
Sascha Y. Struijs  and
Leonore M. de Wit
...Show all authors
Yingying Wang*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Clara Miguel
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Marketa Ciharova
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Arpana Amarnath
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jingyuan Lin
Affiliation:
The Institute of Brain and Psychological Science, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, China
Ruiying Zhao
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Marieke B. J. Toffolo
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mathias Harrer
Affiliation:
Psychology & Digital Mental Health Care, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
Sascha Y. Struijs
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Leonore M. de Wit
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Pim Cuijpers
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands International Institute for Psychotherapy, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Correspondence: Yingying Wang. Email: y.w.yingying.wang@vu.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

While various delivery formats of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) are available, comprehensive evidence on their comparative effectiveness and acceptability is lacking.

Aim

To examine the comparative effectiveness and acceptability of different CBT delivery formats for OCD.

Method

An existing database of psychological interventions for OCD was utilised, with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT delivery formats with each other/control groups were included. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Comparative standard mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for effectiveness in reducing OCD symptom severity post-treatment. Relative risks were calculated for acceptability (conceptualised as any cause discontinuation in the acute treatment phase).

Results

A total of 61 RCTs involving 3710 patients with OCD were included. All CBT treatment formats were significantly more effective than control groups (SMDs: −0.39 to −1.66). No significant differences were found among individual, remote-delivery, guided self-help, time-intensive and family-involved formats. However, individual, remote-delivery and family-involved formats were more effective than group (SMDs, −0.38 to −0.60), and most treatment formats were more effective than unguided self-help (SMDs, −0.58 to −0.80). Regarding acceptability, most CBT formats showed no significant differences among themselves, although they were generally more acceptable (relative risks: 1.11–1.18) than unguided self-help.

Conclusions

Most CBT delivery formats serve as potential alternatives to conventional individual CBT. Unguided self-help has lower but still moderate effects in reducing OCD symptom severity, and it holds important potential for assisting a larger number of individuals with OCD who face barriers to accessing treatments.

Keywords

Obsessive–compulsive disordersnetwork meta-analysescognitive–behavioural therapycognitive–behavioural therapy delivery formateffectiveness and acceptability

Information

Type
Review
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 228 , Issue 3 , March 2026 , pp. 252 - 262
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic and debilitating mental disorder,Reference Abramowitz and Jacoby1 adversely affecting both individual patients and their families.Reference Steketee2,Reference Stengler-Wenzke, Kroll, Matschinger and Angermeyer3 Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) stands as the gold standard for treating OCD, traditionally delivered during individual, face-to-face weekly sessions. However, alternative CBT delivery formats have also shown effectiveness in OCD treatment. These formats include remote-delivery,Reference Hollmann, Hohnecker, Haigis, Alt, Kühnhausen and Pascher4–Reference Vogel, Solem, Hagen, Moen, Launes and Håland7 group,Reference Braga, Abramovitch, Fontenelle, Ferrão, Gomes and Vivan8–Reference Lee, Choi and Lee10 guided self-help,Reference Andersson, Enander, Andrén, Hedman, Ljótsson and Hursti11–Reference Wu, Li, Zhou, Gao, Wang and Ye13 unguided self-help,Reference Mahoney, Mackenzie, Williams, Smith and Andrews14–Reference Moritz and Jelinek16 family-involvedReference Freeman, Sapyta, Garcia, Compton, Khanna and Flessner17–Reference Lenhard, Andersson, Mataix-Cols, Rück, Vigerland and Högström19 and time-intensive formats.Reference Challacombe, Salkovskis, Woolgar, Wilkinson, Read and Acheson20–Reference Lindsay, Crino and Andrews22 Prior conventional pairwise meta-analyses have examined the effectiveness of these CBT delivery formats,Reference Hoppen, Kuck, Bürkner, Karin, Wootton and Buhlmann23–Reference Jónsson, Kristensen and Arendt26 including direct comparisons (i.e. examined in the same trial) between specific delivery formats, such as individual versus group formats.Reference Jónsson and Hougaard27–Reference Pozza and Dèttore29 However, these analyses are limited by their focus on direct evidence from head-to-head comparisons within individual studies. They often exclude indirect evidence, which is obtained by comparing treatments via a common comparator. This indirect evidence is crucial for drawing inferences about the relative effectiveness of treatments that have not been directly compared in the same study, thereby enhancing the overall understanding of the field.

Study aims and hypothesis

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) overcome the limitations of conventional meta-analyses by making optimal use of all available evidence by combining both direct and indirect evidence. They not only provide a comprehensive estimate of effectiveness, but also enable the ranking of treatments to identify the most and least effective among them.Reference White30 A recent NMAReference Cervin, McGuire, D'Souza, De Nadai, Aspvall and Goodman31 on paediatric OCD explored the efficacy and acceptability of in-person CBT, telephone/webcam CBT and internet-delivered CBT, finding that in-person CBT was significantly more effective than internet-delivered CBT, but not significantly different from telephone/webcam CBT. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has simultaneously investigated the effectiveness and acceptability of all available CBT delivery formats for OCD in both paediatric and adult populations. Addressing this question is crucial for individuals with OCD and the future organisation and optimisation of mental healthcare system resources. Therefore, our objective was to conduct a new NMA to investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of various CBT delivery formats for OCD. Drawing on existing knowledge,Reference Hollmann, Hohnecker, Haigis, Alt, Kühnhausen and Pascher4,Reference Schwartze, Barkowski, Burlingame, Strauss and Rosendahl25,Reference Jónsson, Kristensen and Arendt26,Reference Wang, Amarnath, Miguel, Ciharova, Lin and Zhao32–Reference Reid, Laws, Drummond, Vismara, Grancini and Mpavaenda35 we hypothesised that all CBT delivery formats would be significantly more effective than control groups, with no specific expectations regarding acceptability.

Method

Identification and selection of studies

We utilised a database of psychological interventions for OCD, which was built through comprehensive searches in both international (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, international clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP) of the World Health Organization (WHO)) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WeiPu, WanFang, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (CCTR)) databases, spanning from inception to 1 September 2023. China, as the second most populous country globally, has a substantial number of individuals suffering from OCD.36 However, while many Chinese researchers have explored OCD,Reference Fu and Xie37–Reference Geng, Xu and Wu39 their work might not be accessible in international databases owing to language barriers. We have already published two meta-analyses with this database.Reference Wang, Amarnath, Miguel, Ciharova, Lin and Zhao32,Reference Wang, Miguel, Ciharova, Amarnath, Lin and Zhao33 Detailed search strings can be found in Supplementary Appendix A available at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.197. Data extraction commenced on 11 September 2023. The study protocol was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework (https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-54cm7-v1).

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a CBT delivery format to a control group or another CBT delivery format for individuals with a primary diagnosis of OCD, using valid clinical semi-structured interviews, were included. There were no restrictions on the duration of treatment, the number of sessions or the minimum number of participants. In addition, no limitations were placed on gender, age or setting.

Trials designed as stepped-care management, maintenance treatment or relapse prevention were excluded, as were comparisons of one certain CBT delivery format with only slight differences in treatment content.

We defined a treatment as CBT when it contained an active component of CBT, including exposure and response prevention (ERP) only, cognitive therapy only, ERP + cognitive therapy and third-wave CBT (e.g. acceptance and commitment therapy). The CBT delivery formats encompassed individual (face-to-face weekly sessions only), remote delivery (similar to individual CBT but conducted via technology aids such as telephone or videoconferencing), group, guided self-help, unguided self-help, family involved (involving the patient's family members in treatment sessions) and time intensive (a maximum total duration of 4 weeks, requiring a minimum of ten therapist hours overallReference Jónsson, Kristensen and Arendt26). More extensive definitions of formats can be found in Supplementary Appendix B. Control groups included waitlist, care-as-usual, psychological placebo and pill placebo.

All records were screened and selected by two independent researchers, with any disagreements, such as the rating of the delivery format, resolved through discussion or by a third, senior researcher.

Data extraction and quality assessment

We extracted data across three domains: (a) characteristics of participants, such as mean age, proportion of female and proportion of participants using psychiatric medication; (b) characteristics of the intervention, such as the type of treatment format, whether the treatment was administered by trained therapists and treatment integrity implementation; (c) characteristics of the study, such as region of study origin and recruitment method of participants.

The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2)Reference Sterne, Savović, Page, Elbers, Blencowe and Boutron40 was used to assess the validity of the included studies. Biases were considered across five domains: (a) randomisation process, (b) deviations from intended interventions, (c) missing outcome data, (d) outcome measurement (e) and selective outcome reporting.

Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two independent researchers, and any disagreements were solved through discussion.

Outcomes

The main outcomes were effectiveness at post-treatment and acceptability. Effectiveness was evaluated using a single outcome measuring OCD symptom severity in each study, determined via a hierarchy algorithm based on its frequency of usage in preceding literature (see Supplementary Appendix C). Acceptability was operationalised as the study drop-out rate for any cause during the acute treatment phase.

Statistical analyses

A series of pairwise meta-analyses were performed for all direct comparisons using a random-effects pooling model, with the I 2 statistic and τ 2 calculated to assess the heterogeneity of effect sizes.

NMAs were conducted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of all treatments by combining both direct and indirect evidence. Initially, we depicted the geometry of the network of evidence using network plots.Reference Hutton, Salanti, Caldwell, Chaimani, Schmid and Cameron41 Subsequently, NMAs were conducted for both effectiveness and acceptability utilising a frequentist NMA method,Reference Rücker42 with the random-effects model.Reference Higgins, Jackson, Barrett, Lu, Ades and White43 Comparative standard mean differences (SMDs) for effectiveness and relative risks for acceptability were reported with 95% confidence intervals. The ranking of treatment formats was assessed based on the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.Reference Salanti, Ades and Ioannidis44 Furthermore, we examined the results at 3–12 months follow-up.

To assess the assumption of transitivity, we created a table of characteristics of patients and interventions for direct comparisons, verifying if potential effect modifiers were similarly distributed across the network. Consistency of the network was checked through both local and global inconsistency tests. The net heat plotReference Krahn, Binder and König45 visualised the degree of inconsistency within the network using colour gradients, as determined in the local test. The node-splitting methodReference Dias, Welton, Caldwell and Ades46 was employed to scrutinise consistency across the entire network of treatments, assessing the consistency assumption for each node (treatment comparison) in the network during the global test.

Three pre-planned sensitivity analyses were conducted: (a) exclusion of outliers (where the 95% CI around a study's effect size did not overlap with 95% of the pooled effect size in any pairwise meta-analyses); (b) limitation to studies with a low risk of bias; and (c) inclusion of treatment arms containing both cognitive and behavioural therapeutic techniques. In addition, a post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of comorbidities (where studies recruited participants with at least one co-occurring mental disorder).

The analyses were conducted in R version 4.2.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; see https://www.R-project.org/) using the ‘netmeta’ package.Reference Balduzzi, Rücker, Nikolakopoulou, Papakonstantinou, Salanti and Efthimiou47 The network plot and the certainty of evidence for the network estimates was examined through CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis; see https://cinema.ispm.unibe.ch/).Reference Papakonstantinou, Nikolakopoulou, Higgins, Egger and Salanti48

Results

Identification, inclusion and characteristics of studies

Figure 1 presents a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart of study selection and inclusion. A total of 11 316 records were initially identified through both international and Chinese databases. Ultimately, 61 RCTsReference Hollmann, Hohnecker, Haigis, Alt, Kühnhausen and Pascher4–Reference Lindsay, Crino and Andrews22,Reference Fu and Xie37,Reference Alcolado and Radomsky49–Reference Tolin, Hannan, Maltby, Diefenbach, Worhunsky and Brady89 were included in the NMA, including one Chinese RCT, encompassing 3710 OCD patients (3044 adults, 666 children/adolescents). Three RCTs focused on OCD with comorbidity, including substance misuse,Reference Fals-Stewart and Schafer53 autism spectrum disorderReference Russell, Jassi, Fullana, Mack, Johnston and Heyman75 and autism symptoms.Reference Wolters, de Haan, Hogendoorn, Boer and Prins86

Figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart of study selection and inclusion.

ICTRP, international clinical trials registry platform; CNKI, China National Knowledge Infrastructure; ChiCTR, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; OCD, obsessive–compulsive disorder.

Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the included studies, and more detailed information can be found in Supplementary Appendices D and E.

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies in effectiveness and acceptability network

Y-BOCS, Yale–Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale; CY-BOCS, Children's Yale–Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale.

Within 61 RCTs, there were a total of 73 comparisons. A total of 33 treatment arms were individual, 12 were group, 11 were family involved, 11 were unguided self-help, 9 were guided self-help, 5 were remote delivery and 3 were time intensive. For the arms of control groups, 32 were waitlist, 17 were psychological placebo, 7 were care-as-usual and 3 were pill placebo.

Over half of the included RCTs were conducted within the past 15 years, and 60% were carried out in USA and Europe. Most participants (59%) were recruited from the community. Treatment typically ranged from 8 to 15 sessions. A high proportion (92%) of RCTs reported explicitly adherence to treatment protocols or manuals, while 80% monitored treatment fidelity and 77% delivered treatment through trained therapists. The Yale–Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) and Children's Y-BOCS (CY-BOCS) were predominantly utilised for assessments. Post-treatment assessments were mostly conducted at 8–15 weeks.

Concerning the risk of bias (see Supplementary Appendix F), 52% of RCTs reported adequate sequence generation, 43% reported allocation to conditions by an independent third party and 79% reported self-reported or blinded clinician-rated outcomes. More than half of RCTs (57%) used adequate analyses for handling missing data. However, 82% of RCTs raised concerns regarding selective outcome reporting. In total, 71% of RCTs were rated as having a high risk of bias.

Network plot

The network plot is presented in Fig. 2. Overall, the network was well connected. Individual was the most studied CBT delivery format, demonstrating strong connections with other formats and control groups. Individual, remote-delivery, group, guided self-help, unguided self-help and family-involved formats exhibited connectivity primarily through comparisons with waitlist and psychological placebo. The time-intensive format was the least studied, with only three trials comparing it to control groups.

Figure 2

Network plot of meta-analysis. The size of node and thickness of edges were based on the number of studies on that comparison.

Ind, individual; Grp, group; RD, remote-delivery; FI, family involved; GSH, guided self-help; USH, unguided self-help; TI, time intensive; WL, waitlist; pill p, pill placebo; Psy p, psychological placebo; CAU, care-as-usual.

Pairwise meta-analyses

The most direct comparisons were that between individual and waitlist formats. The time-intensive format had the fewest direct comparisons. Individual, remote-delivery, group, guided self-help, unguided self-help and family-involved formats were significantly more effective than waitlist format (SMD, −0.53 to −1.82). The results of pairwise meta-analyses for CBT delivery formats can be found in Supplementary Appendix G.

Network meta-analyses

Effectiveness

Table 2 presents the NMA results for effectiveness and acceptability. Individual, remote-delivery, group, family-involved, guided self-help and time-intensive formats were significantly more effective than waitlist (SMD, −1.66 to −0.87), psychological placebo (SMD, −1.37 to −0.58), pill placebo (SMD, −1.57 to −0.78) and care-as-usual (SMD, −1.54 to −0.75) formats. Unguided self-help was significantly more effective than waitlist (SMD, −0.67), psychological placebo (SMD, −0.39) and care-as-usual (SMD, −0.56) formats, but significantly less effective than individual (SMD, −0.58), remote-delivery (SMD, –0.80), family-involved (SMD, −0.65) and time-intensive (SMD, −0.98) formats. In addition, individual (SMD, −0.38), remote-delivery (SMD, −0.60) and family-involved (SMD, −0.46) formats were significantly more effective than group format. No significant differences were observed among individual, remote-delivery, family-involved, guided self-help and time-intensive formats.

Table 2

Network meta-analyses of cognitive–behavioural therapy delivery formats for obsessive–compulsive disorder

Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals for effectiveness are reported below the diagonal. SMDs lower than 0 favour the column-defining treatment, with 95% confidence intervals not including the point of no difference (0) highlighted in bold. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for acceptability are reported above the diagonal. relative risks greater than 1 favour the column-defining treatment, with 95% confidence intervals not including the point of no difference (1) highlighted in bold.

Acceptability

No significant differences were found among individual, remote-delivery, group, guided self-help, family-involved, time-intensive and control groups. However, unguided self-help was found to be significantly less acceptable than individual (relative risk, 1.11), remote-delivery (relative risk, 1.18), group (relative risk, 1.16), guided self-help (relative risk, 1.12) and family-involved (relative risk, 1.12) formats. Moreover, unguided self-help demonstrated significantly lower acceptability (relative risk, 0.90 to 0.91) compared to psychological placebo and waitlist formats.

Ranking of the treatment formats

Figure 3 presents a forest plot illustrating the ranking of treatment formats, with waitlist as the reference group. A scatter plot combining effectiveness and acceptability is available in Supplementary Appendix H, where detailed SUCRA rankings of the treatment formats can also be found. For effectiveness, time-intensive ranked the highest (92%), followed by remote-delivery (87%), family-involved (80%), individual (76%), guided self-help (59%), group (52%) and unguided self-help (42%) formats. Regarding acceptability, remote-delivery (81%) held the highest rank, followed by family-involved (61%), guided self-help (59%), individual (54%) and time-intensive (41%) formats. Unguided self-help (15%) ranked considerably lower than other formats. In terms of confidence in the quality of evidence assessed through CINeMA, none of the comparisons were rated as ‘high confidence’, primarily because of within-study bias. Confidence in the estimate ranged from moderate to low (see Supplementary Appendix I).

Figure 3

Ranked forest plot of effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive–behavioural therapy formats.

SMD, standard mean difference; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; RR, relative risk.

Consistency examination

Visual inspection of the distribution of potential effect modifiers indicated that most potential modifiers were similarly distributed across the comparisons in the network, although there were potential differences in mean age and gender across some comparisons (see Supplementary Appendix J). However, our previous study found that age and gender were not effect modifiers.Reference Wang, Miguel, Ciharova, Amarnath, Lin and Zhao33 Both local and global tests generally demonstrated substantial consistency between direct and indirect evidence, except in some comparisons with a limited number of studies, such as time intensive versus psychological placebo (see Supplementary Appendix K).

Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses excluding outliersReference Khodarahimi62 and studies with comorbiditiesReference Fals-Stewart and Schafer53,Reference Russell, Jassi, Fullana, Mack, Johnston and Heyman75,Reference Wolters, de Haan, Hogendoorn, Boer and Prins86 yielded results consistent with the main analyses (see Supplementary Appendices L and M). In the sensitivity analysis for studies with low risk of bias, 20 comparisons were included (see Supplementary Appendix N). The results were generally similar, with minor differences compared to the main analyses. All CBT delivery formats were more effective than care-as-usual. No significant differences were found among most formats, except for unguided self-help, which was less effective than individual and remote-delivery formats. In the sensitivity analysis for treatment arms containing both cognitive and behavioural therapeutic techniques, 40 comparisons were included (see Supplementary Appendix O). No significant differences were found among all formats. They were significantly more effective than waitlist, with the exception of the time-intensive format, which exhibited no significant difference in effect compared to waitlist.

Long-term effect

Sixteen direct comparisons examining the effects of CBT delivery formats at 3–12 months follow-up were identified, with 12 focusing on individual and the remaining four on group, guided self-help and unguided self-help formats. A NMA was performed to estimate the long-term effects of CBT delivery formats, using psychological placebo as the reference group. Individual CBT continued to be effective at 3–12 months follow-up compared to psychological placebo (SMD, −0.46) and unguided self-help formats (SMD, −0.72; see Supplementary Appendix P).

Discussion

This NMA represents the first comprehensive comparison of the effectiveness and acceptability of various CBT delivery formats for OCD in both paediatric and adult populations. The results indicated that all CBT delivery formats significantly reduced OCD symptom severity compared to control groups, and these findings were consistent across all sensitivity analyses. Moreover, most CBT delivery formats showed no significant difference in reducing OCD symptom severity, such as individual CBT versus remote-delivery CBT and individual CBT versus guided self-help CBT. This is partly consistent with a previous NMA on paediatric OCDReference Cervin, McGuire, D'Souza, De Nadai, Aspvall and Goodman31 that included 20 comparisons for in-person CBT, 4 for telephone/webcam CBT and 2 for guided self-help CBT, finding no significant difference between individual and telephone/webcam CBT, but noting that individual CBT was more effective than guided self-help CBT. Our findings underscore the potential of various CBT delivery formats as viable alternatives to traditional individual, face-to-face weekly CBT. However, further research with direct comparisons among delivery formats, especially those with limited current evidence such as time-intensive formats, is needed for more definitive conclusions.

However, group CBT was less effective than individual CBT, which contrasts with findings from previous conventional meta-analyses directly comparing these formats.Reference Jónsson, Hougaard and Bennedsen28,Reference Pozza and Dèttore29 In addition, group CBT was less effective than remote-delivery and family-involved CBT. Despite this, group CBT showed great advantages in terms of acceptability, supporting the hypothesis that it might prevent drop out, as participants tend to increase their motivation to engage in treatment after sharing feelings with others facing similar conditions, particularly for less motivated patients with weaker symptom insight.Reference McKay, Sookman, Neziroglu, Wilhelm, Stein and Kyrios90 These results should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of comparisons included and the inconsistent results from sensitivity analyses.

Furthermore, while unguided self-help showed less effectiveness compared to other treatment formats, the effects of this format were still moderate. Similar findings have been observed for unguided interventions in depression.Reference Cuijpers, Noma, Karyotaki, Cipriani and Furukawa91 Nonetheless, unguided self-help has the advantage of reaching individuals with OCD who face barriers to accessing traditional treatments, such as geographical isolation, a shortage of trained therapists, treatment costs and stigma.Reference Baer and Minichiello92–Reference Marques, LeBlanc, Weingarden, Timpano, Jenike and Wilhelm95 Previous research has indicated that unguided self-help has the potential to reduce stigma associated with seeking professional help,Reference Levin, Krafft and Levin96 indicating its potential for significant clinical impact despite its high drop-out rates. The acceptability results for unguided self-help corroborate the results of a prior study,Reference Wang, Miguel, Ciharova, Amarnath, Lin and Zhao33 wherein unguided self-help interventions displayed a significantly higher drop-out rate compared to control groups, and the study further highlighted the association among the type of treatment, recruitment method of participants and drop-out rates. Future studies on predictors and moderators of drop out in CBT intervention at the patient level could be helpful for enhancing treatment adherence.

Regarding treatment rank, time-intensive format displayed a high potential for reducing OCD symptomology. However, the limited number of studies (n = 3) necessitates a cautious interpretation of the results. The remote-delivery format showed promise in enhancing the accessibility of CBT, combining effectiveness and acceptability. Remote-delivery CBT provides psychotherapeutic skills and treatment sessions similar to traditional face-to-face CBT but utilises technology such as telephone or videoconferencing to facilitate real-time interactions between therapists and clients who are physically apart. This format is particularly beneficial for individuals who cannot access traditional CBT because of geographical or social barriers, or pandemic-related restrictions. The potential for improved treatment efficacy with remote-delivery CBT is noted, as clients receive therapeutic support in real time. These findings align with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, which support telephone-delivered CBT.97 Family-involved CBT also showed notable effectiveness and acceptability; in these interventions, family members are recognised to play a significant role in either exacerbating or maintaining the OCD symptoms of patients through overly accommodating or overly antagonising behaviors.Reference Stewart, Sumantry and Malivoire34 Common treatment components for family members in these interventions include psychoeducation on OCD, strategies to reduce involvement in patients’ symptoms and encouragement of family support for home-based treatment exercises.Reference Gomes, Cordioli, Bortoncello, Braga, Gonçalves and Heldt18,Reference Barrett, Healy and March50,Reference Storch, Caporino, Morgan, Lewin, Rojas and Brauer78 It is plausible that patients with positive influences from their families may have increased confidence in adhering to treatment and practising exercises in their natural environments. While a thorough exploration of the moderators of effect in family interventions is highly necessary, these results underscore the importance of incorporating family members in future clinical practices for OCD treatment. In addition, guided self-help also exhibited advantages in terms of both effectiveness and acceptability, suggesting its significant potential in treating OCD on a larger scale.Reference Andersson, Titov, Dear, Rozental and Carlbring98 However, given that most CBT delivery formats did not differ significantly in terms of effectiveness and acceptability, treatment rankings should be viewed as a general guidance rather than definitive conclusions. In selecting a treatment, additional factors such as cost-effectiveness are also crucial. For instance, while telephone-delivered CBT showed no significant difference in cost-effectiveness compared to individual CBT,Reference Tie, Krebs, Lang, Shearer, Turner and Mataix-Cols99 guided self-help formats, such as internet-delivered CBT, were demonstrated to be cost-effective options.Reference Andersson, Hedman, Ljótsson, Wikström, Elveling and Lindefors100 Ultimately, the choice of treatment should be based on individual needs when multiple evidence-based options are available.

In terms of long-term effects, the limited number of studies examining the lasting effects of CBT may be attributed to the nature of comparisons included. Given that most control groups involved waitlist and psychological placebo conditions, follow-up data often became unusable owing to participants receiving the intervention after the post-test. Consistent with the prior research,Reference Öst, Havnen, Hansen and Kvale101 individual CBT remained more effective than the control group at 3–12 months follow-up. However, caution is warranted when interpreting results for other CBT formats because of the limited number of studies included in this NMA.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted in this NMA. First, studies were unevenly distributed among different delivery formats: while most studies focused on individual CBT, few studies focused on time-intensive CBT. This imbalance affects the validity of the findings and necessitates cautious interpretation of the results. Second, high risk of bias observed across studies affected the confidence in the results. Future studies should employ more rigorous and stringent methodologies, especially in handling missing data and preventing selective reporting of outcomes through prospective registration. Third, the validity of transitivity assumption is not fully assured, and further research is needed to explore differences among groups with OCD, such as those using guided self-help, time-intensive or family-involved treatments. Fourth, more future studies are required to better understand long-term effects. Lastly, we used drop-out rates as a proxy for acceptability, acknowledging that it may not fully capture the complexity of patients’ experiences and decisions to continue or discontinue treatment. Future research should aim to incorporate more nuanced and direct measures of acceptability.

In conclusion, most CBT delivery formats emerge as potential alternatives to conventional individual CBT; delivering remotely or involving family members may offer advantages for both treatment effect and adherence. Intensive treatment delivery reveals strong potential for reducing OCD symptomology, but more robust evidence is required because of a limited number of studies. Although displaying less effectiveness than most other formats, unguided interventions hold significant potential to extend the accessibility of treatments, particularly in environments with limited resources. More research on direct comparisons between formats is highly recommended. Ensuring the application of effective and acceptable delivery formats across diverse settings and populations is crucial for OCD management. The findings from this study contribute valuable insights into the optimisation and organisation of mental health resources that can shape future global clinical guidelines for managing OCD.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.197

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author Y.W., upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

We thank C.M., M.C., A.A., J.L. and R.Z. for their contribution to data collection.

Author contributions

Y.W., S.Y.S., L.M.W. and P.C. designed the study. Y.W. conducted analyses and prepared the draft manuscript. Y.W., C.M., M.C., A.A., J.L. and R.Z. contributed to data collection. C.M., M.B.J.T., M.H., M.C., A.A., J.L., R.Z., S.Y.S., L.M.W. and P.C. provided critical and intellectual comments on the draft. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Y.W. is financially supported by the Chinese Scholarship Council, grant no. 202108330055, for her PhD. J.L. is financially supported by the Sichuan Science and Technology Program, grant no. 2024NSFSC1226. The funding sources had no role in the design of the research.

Declaration of interest

P.C. is member of the BJPsych editorial board and did not take part in the review or decision-making process of this paper. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

Abramowitz, JS, Jacoby, RJ. Obsessive-compulsive disorder in the DSM-5. Clin Psychol 2014; 21(3): 221.Google Scholar
Steketee, G. Disability and family burden in obsessive – compulsive disorder. Can J Psychiatry 1997; 42(9): 919–28.10.1177/070674379704200902CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stengler-Wenzke, K, Kroll, M, Matschinger, H, Angermeyer, MC. Quality of life of relatives of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Compr Psychiatry 2006; 47(6): 523–7.10.1016/j.comppsych.2006.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollmann, K, Hohnecker, CS, Haigis, A, Alt, AK, Kühnhausen, J, Pascher, A, et al. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy in children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Fronti Psychiatry 2022; 13: 989550.Google ScholarPubMed
Lovell, K, Cox, D, Haddock, G, Jones, C, Raines, D, Garvey, R, et al. Telephone administered cognitive behaviour therapy for treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Br Med J 2006; 333(7574): 883.10.1136/bmj.38940.355602.80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, CM, Mataix-Cols, D, Lovell, K, Krebs, G, Lang, K, Byford, S, et al. Telephone cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2014; 53(12): 1298–307.e2.10.1016/j.jaac.2014.09.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogel, PA, Solem, S, Hagen, K, Moen, EM, Launes, G, Håland, ÅT, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of videoconference-assisted treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behav Res Ther 2014; 63: 162–8.10.1016/j.brat.2014.10.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braga, DT, Abramovitch, A, Fontenelle, LF, Ferrão, YA, Gomes, JB, Vivan, AS, et al. Neuropsychological predictors of treatment response to cognitive behavioral group therapy in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Depress Anxiety 2016; 33(9): 848–61.10.1002/da.22509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, RA, Rees, CS. Group versus individual cognitive-behavioural treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a controlled trial. Behav Res Ther 2007; 45(1): 123–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, SW, Choi, M, Lee, SJ. A randomized controlled trial of group-based acceptance and commitment therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Context Behav Sci 2023; 27: 45–53.10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.11.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, E, Enander, J, Andrén, P, Hedman, E, Ljótsson, B, Hursti, T, et al. Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Med 2012; 42(10): 2193–203.10.1017/S0033291712000244CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herbst, N, Voderholzer, U, Thiel, N, Schaub, R, Knaevelsrud, C, Stracke, S, et al. No talking, just writing! efficacy of an internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy with exposure and response prevention in obsessive compulsive disorder. Psychother Psychosom 2014; 83(3): 165–75.10.1159/000357570CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Y, Li, X, Zhou, Y, Gao, R, Wang, K, Ye, H, et al. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness analysis of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25: e41283.10.2196/41283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahoney, AEJ, Mackenzie, A, Williams, AD, Smith, J, Andrews, G. Internet cognitive behavioural treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder: a randomised controlled trial. Behav Res Ther 2014; 63: 99–106.10.1016/j.brat.2014.09.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moritz, S, Hauschildt, M, Murray, SC, Pedersen, A, Krausz, M, Jelinek, L. New wine in an old bottle? Evaluation of myMCT as an integrative bibliotherapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Obsessive-Compulsive Relat Disord 2018; 16: 88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moritz, S, Jelinek, L. Further evidence for the efficacy of association splitting as a self-help technique for reducing obsessive thoughts. Depress Anxiety 2011; 28(7): 574–81.10.1002/da.20843CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, J, Sapyta, J, Garcia, A, Compton, S, Khanna, M, Flessner, C, et al. Family-based treatment of early childhood obsessive-compulsive disorder: the pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder treatment study for young children (POTS Jr)—a randomized clinical trial. JAMA psychiatry 2014; 71(6): 689–98.10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, JB, Cordioli, AV, Bortoncello, CF, Braga, DT, Gonçalves, F, Heldt, E. Impact of cognitive-behavioral group therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder on family accommodation: a randomized clinical trial. Psychiatry Res 2016; 246: 70–6.10.1016/j.psychres.2016.09.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenhard, F, Andersson, E, Mataix-Cols, D, Rück, C, Vigerland, S, Högström, J, et al. Therapist-Guided, internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2017; 56(1): 10–9.e2.10.1016/j.jaac.2016.09.515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Challacombe, FL, Salkovskis, PM, Woolgar, M, Wilkinson, EL, Read, J, Acheson, R. A pilot randomized controlled trial of time-intensive cognitive–behaviour therapy for postpartum obsessive–compulsive disorder: effects on maternal symptoms, mother–infant interactions and attachment. Psychol Med 2017; 47(8): 1478–88.10.1017/S0033291716003573CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foa, EB, Liebowitz, MR, Kozak, MJ, Davies, S, Campeas, R, Franklin, ME, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of exposure and ritual prevention, clomipramine, and their combination in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162(1): 151–61.10.1176/appi.ajp.162.1.151CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsay, M, Crino, R, Andrews, G. Controlled trial of exposure and response prevention in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Br J Psychiatry 1997; 171: 135–9.10.1192/bjp.171.2.135CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoppen, LM, Kuck, N, Bürkner, PC, Karin, E, Wootton, BM, Buhlmann, U. Low intensity technology-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 2021; 21(1): 322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrath, CA, Abbott, MJ. Family-Based psychological treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2019; 22(4): 478–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartze, D, Barkowski, S, Burlingame, GM, Strauss, B, Rosendahl, J. Efficacy of group psychotherapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Obsessive-Compulsive Relat Disord 2016; 10: 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, H, Kristensen, M, Arendt, M. Intensive cognitive behavioural therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obsessive-Compulsive Relat Disord 2015; 6: 83–96.10.1016/j.jocrd.2015.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, H, Hougaard, E. Group cognitive behavioural therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2009; 119(2): 98–106.10.1111/j.1600-0447.2008.01270.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jónsson, H, Hougaard, E, Bennedsen, BE. Randomized comparative study of group versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2011; 123(5): 387–97.10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01613.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pozza, A, Dèttore, D. Drop-out and efficacy of group versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy: what works best for obsessive-compulsive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct comparisons. Psychiatry Res 2017; 258: 24–36.10.1016/j.psychres.2017.09.056CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, IR. Network meta-analysis. Stata J 2015; 15(4): 951–85.10.1177/1536867X1501500403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervin, M, McGuire, JF, D'Souza, JM, De Nadai, AS, Aspvall, K, Goodman, WK, et al. Efficacy and acceptability of cognitive-behavioral therapy and serotonin reuptake inhibitors for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder: a network meta-analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2024; 65(5): 594–609.10.1111/jcpp.13934CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y, Amarnath, A, Miguel, C, Ciharova, M, Lin, J, Zhao, R, et al. The effectiveness of unguided self-help psychological interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Compr Psychiatry 2024; 130: 152453.10.1016/j.comppsych.2024.152453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y, Miguel, C, Ciharova, M, Amarnath, A, Lin, J, Zhao, R, et al. The effectiveness of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published over last 30 years. Psychol Med [Epub ahead of print] 6 Sep 2024: 1–14.10.1017/S0033291724001375CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, KE, Sumantry, D, Malivoire, BL. Family and couple integrated cognitive-behavioural therapy for adults with OCD: a meta-analysis. J Affect Disord 2020; 277: 159–68.10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.140CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, JE, Laws, KR, Drummond, L, Vismara, M, Grancini, B, Mpavaenda, D, et al. Cognitive behavioural therapy with exposure and response prevention in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Compr Psychiatry 2021; 106: 152223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder in China 2016 (revised edition). Chin J Psychiatry 2016; 49(6): 14.Google Scholar
Fu, Z, Xie, H. Evaluation of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral intervention therapy on improving the psychological Status and quality of life of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Pract J Clin Med 2016; 20(8): 17–20.Google Scholar
Hu S-S, , Xiong, L, Zhang, Z-M. A random controlled study comparing anxiety ratification therapy and mindfulness-based strategy in managing obsessions. Chin Ment Health J 2016; 30(4): 273–80.Google Scholar
Geng, Y, Xu, Z, Wu, C. Hypnotherapy for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Mudanjiang Med Coll 2009; 30(1): 43–4.Google Scholar
Sterne, JA, Savović, J, Page, MJ, Elbers, RG, Blencowe, NS, Boutron, I, et al. Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J 2019; 366: 14898.Google ScholarPubMed
Hutton, B, Salanti, G, Caldwell, DM, Chaimani, A, Schmid, CH, Cameron, C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162(11): 777–84.10.7326/M14-2385CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rücker, G. Network meta-analysis, electrical networks and graph theory. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3(4): 312–24.10.1002/jrsm.1058CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JPT, Jackson, D, Barrett, J, Lu, G, Ades, A, White, I. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3(2): 98–110.10.1002/jrsm.1044CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salanti, G, Ades, A, Ioannidis, JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(2): 163–71.10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krahn, U, Binder, H, König, J. A graphical tool for locating inconsistency in network meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13(1): 1–18.10.1186/1471-2288-13-35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dias, S, Welton, NJ, Caldwell, DM, Ades, AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 2010; 29(7-8): 932–44.10.1002/sim.3767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balduzzi, S, Rücker, G, Nikolakopoulou, A, Papakonstantinou, T, Salanti, G, Efthimiou, O, et al. Netmeta: an R package for network meta-analysis using frequentist methods. J Stat Softw 2023; 106: 1–40.10.18637/jss.v106.i02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papakonstantinou, T, Nikolakopoulou, A, Higgins, JP, Egger, M, Salanti, G. Cinema: software for semiautomated assessment of the confidence in the results of network meta-analysis. Campbell Syst Rev 2020; 16(1): e1080.Google ScholarPubMed
Alcolado, GM, Radomsky, AS. A novel cognitive intervention for compulsive checking: targeting maladaptive beliefs about memory. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 2016; 53: 75–83.10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.02.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, P, Healy, L, March, JS. Behavioral avoidance test for childhood obsessive-compulsive disorder: a home-based observation. Am J Psychother 2003; 57(1): 80–100.10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2003.57.1.80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolton, D, Perrin, S. Evaluation of exposure with response-prevention for obsessive compulsive disorder in childhood and adolescence. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 2008; 39(1): 11–22.10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.11.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cordioli, AV, Heldt, E, Bochi, DB, Margis, R, De Sousa, MB, Tonello, JF, et al. Cognitive-behavioral group therapy in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized clinical trial. Psychother Psychos 2003; 72(4): 211–6.10.1159/000070785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fals-Stewart, W, Schafer, J. The treatment of substance abusers diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder: an outcome study. J Subst Abuse Treat 1992; 9(4): 365–70.10.1016/0740-5472(92)90032-JCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, JB, Garcia, AM, Coyne, L, Ale, C, Przeworski, A, Himle, M, et al. Early childhood OCD: preliminary findings from a family-based cognitive-behavioral approach. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008; 47(5): 593–602.10.1097/CHI.0b013e31816765f9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeston, MH, Ladouceur, R, Gagnon, F, Thibodeau, N, Rhéaume, J, Letarte, H, et al. Cognitive-behavioral treatment of obsessive thoughts: a controlled study. J Consult Clin Psychol 1997; 65(3): 405–13.10.1037/0022-006X.65.3.405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greist, JH, Marks, IM, Baer, L, Kobak, KA, Wenzel, KW, Hirsch, MJ, et al. Behavior therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder guided by a computer or by a clinician compared with relaxation as a control. J Clin Psychiatry 2002; 63(2): 138–45.10.4088/JCP.v63n0209CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grunes, MS, Neziroglu, F, McKay, D. Family involvement in the behavioral treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a preliminary investigation. Behav Ther 2001; 32(4): 803–20.10.1016/S0005-7894(01)80022-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauschildt, M, Schröder, J, Moritz, S. Randomized-controlled trial on a novel (meta-)cognitive self-help approach for obsessive-compulsive disorder (‘myMCT’). J Obsessive-Compulsive Relat Disord 2016; 10: 26–34.10.1016/j.jocrd.2016.04.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaurrieta, N, Jimenez-Murcia, S, Menchón, JM, Alonso, MDP, Segalas, C, ÁLvarez-Moya, EM, et al. Individual versus group cognitive–behavioral treatment for obsessive–compulsive disorder: a controlled pilot study. Psychother Res 2008; 18(5): 604–14.10.1080/10503300802192141CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jónsson, H, Hougaard, E, Bennedsen, B. Randomized comparative study of group versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2011; 123(5): 387–97.10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01613.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, DE, Rector, NA, McCabe, RE, Hawley, LL, Rowa, K, Richter, MA, et al. The effect of aerobic exercise alone and in combination with cognitive behavioural therapy on obsessive compulsive disorder: a randomized control study. J Anxiety Disord 2023; 98: 102746.10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102746CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khodarahimi, S. Satiation therapy and exposure response prevention in the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder. J Contemp Psychother 2009; 39(3): 203–7.10.1007/s10879-009-9110-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, Y, Kanie, A, Nakagawa, A, Takebayashi, Y, Shinmei, I, Nakayama, N, et al. An evaluation of family-based treatment for OCD in Japan: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Front Psychiatry 2020; 10: 932.10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00932CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyrios, M, Ahern, C, Fassnacht, DB, Nedeljkovic, M, Moulding, R, Meyer, D. Therapist-Assisted internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy versus progressive relaxation in obsessive-compulsive disorder: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20(8): e242.10.2196/jmir.9566CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewin, AB, Park, JM, Jones, AM, Crawford, EA, De Nadai, AS, Menzel, J, et al. Family-based exposure and response prevention therapy for preschool-aged children with obsessive-compulsive disorder: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther 2014; 56: 30–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lundström, L, Flygare, O, Andersson, E, Enander, J, Bottai, M, Ivanov, VZ, et al. Effect of internet-based vs face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy for adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5(3): e221967.10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.1967CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsumoto, K, Hamatani, S, Makino, T, Takahashi, J, Suzuki, F, Ida, T, et al. Guided internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a multicenter randomized controlled trial in Japan. Internet Intervent 2022; 28: 100515.10.1016/j.invent.2022.100515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, PD, Whittal, ML, Thordarson, DS, Taylor, S, Söchting, I, Koch, WJ, et al. Cognitive versus behavior therapy in the group treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 2001; 69(2): 205–14.10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moritz, S, Jelinek, L, Hauschildt, M, Naber, D. How to treat the untreated: effectiveness of a self-help metacognitive training program (myMCT) for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2010; 12(2): 209–20.10.31887/DCNS.2010.12.2/smoritzCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakatani, E, Nakagawa, A, Nakao, T, Yoshizato, C, Nabeyama, M, Kudo, A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Japanese patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder – effectiveness of behavior therapy and fluvoxamine. Psychother Psychos 2005; 74(5): 269–76.10.1159/000086317CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, LJ, Mannella, KA, Yang, H, Angstadt, M, Abelson, JL, Himle, JA, et al. Treatment-Specific associations between brain activation and symptom reduction in OCD following CBT: a randomized fMRI trial. Am J Psychiatry 2021; 178(1): 39–47.10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.19080886CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, K, Todorov, C, Robillard, S, Borgeat, F, Brault, M. Cognitive-behaviour therapy and medication in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a controlled study. Can J Psychiatry 1999; 44(1): 64–71.10.1177/070674379904400108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, KP, Aardema, F, Robillard, S, Guay, S, Pélissier, MC, Todorov, C, et al. Cognitive behaviour therapy and medication in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006; 113(5): 408–19.10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00767.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piacentini, J, Bergman, RL, Chang, S, Langley, A, Peris, T, Wood, JJ, et al. Controlled comparison of family cognitive behavioral therapy and psychoeducation/relaxation training for child obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2011; 50(11): 1149–61.10.1016/j.jaac.2011.08.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, AJ, Jassi, A, Fullana, MA, Mack, H, Johnston, K, Heyman, I, et al. Cognitive behavior therapy for comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder in high-functioning autism spectrum disorders: a randomized controlled trial. Depress Anxiety 2013; 30(8): 697–708.10.1002/da.22053CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russman Block, S, Norman, LJ, Zhang, X, Mannella, KA, Yang, H, Angstadt, M, et al. Resting-State connectivity and response to psychotherapy treatment in adolescents and adults with OCD: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Psychiatry 2023; 180(1): 89–99.10.1176/appi.ajp.21111173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, BC, Wittekind, CE, Talhof, A, Korrelboom, K, Moritz, S. Competitive memory training (COMET) for OCD: a self-treatment approach to obsessions. Cogn Behav Ther 2015; 44(2): 142–52.10.1080/16506073.2014.981758CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storch, EA, Caporino, NE, Morgan, JR, Lewin, AB, Rojas, A, Brauer, L, et al. Preliminary investigation of web-camera delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for youth with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Res 2011; 189(3): 407–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Team POTSP. Cognitive-behavior therapy, sertraline, and their combination for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: the pediatric OCD treatment study (POTS) randomized controlled trial. Jama 2004; 292(16): 1969–76.10.1001/jama.292.16.1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson-Hollands, J, Abramovitch, A, Tompson, MC, Barlow, DH. A randomized clinical trial of a brief family intervention to reduce accommodation in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a preliminary study. Behav Ther 2015; 46(2): 218–29.10.1016/j.beth.2014.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Twohig, MP, Hayes, SC, Plumb, JC, Pruitt, LD, Collins, AB, Hazlett-Stevens, H, et al. A randomized clinical trial of acceptance and commitment therapy versus progressive relaxation training for obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 2010; 78(5): 705–16.10.1037/a0020508CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Balkom, AJ, de Haan, E, van Oppen, P, Spinhoven, P, Hoogduin, KA, van Dyck, R. Cognitive and behavioral therapies alone versus in combination with fluvoxamine in the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis 1998; 186(8): 492–9.10.1097/00005053-199808000-00007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittal, ML, Woody, SR, McLean, PD, Rachman, SJ, Robichaud, M. Treatment of obsessions: a randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther 2010; 48(4): 295–303.10.1016/j.brat.2009.11.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilhelm, S, Steketee, G, Fama, JM, Buhlmann, U, Teachman, BA, Golan, E. Modular cognitive therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a wait-list controlled trial. J Cogn Psychother 2009; 23(4): 294–305.10.1891/0889-8391.23.4.294CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, TI, Salkovskis, PM, Forrester, L, Turner, S, White, H, Allsopp, MA. A randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder in children and adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2010; 19(5): 449–56.10.1007/s00787-009-0077-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolters, LH, de Haan, E, Hogendoorn, SM, Boer, F, Prins, PJM. Severe pediatric obsessive compulsive disorder and co-morbid autistic symptoms: effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy. J Obsessive-Compulsive Relat Disord 2016; 10: 69–77.10.1016/j.jocrd.2016.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, BM, Dear, BF, Johnston, L, Terides, MD, Titov, N. Remote treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. J Obsessive-Compulsive Relat Disord 2013; 2(4): 375–84.10.1016/j.jocrd.2013.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, T, Lu, L, Didonna, F, Wang, Z, Zhang, H, Fan, Q. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for unmedicated obsessive-compulsive disorder: a randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up. Front Psychiatry 2021; 12: 661807.Google ScholarPubMed
Tolin, DF, Hannan, S, Maltby, N, Diefenbach, GJ, Worhunsky, P, Brady, RE. A randomized controlled trial of self-directed versus therapist-directed cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder patients with prior medication trials. Behav Ther 2007; 38(2): 179–91.10.1016/j.beth.2006.07.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKay, D, Sookman, D, Neziroglu, F, Wilhelm, S, Stein, DJ, Kyrios, M, et al. Efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive–compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Res 2015; 225(3): 236–46.10.1016/j.psychres.2014.11.058CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuijpers, P, Noma, H, Karyotaki, E, Cipriani, A, Furukawa, TA. Effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive behavior therapy delivery formats in adults with depression: a network meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2019; 76(7): 700–7.10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0268CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baer, L, Minichiello, WE. Reasons for inadequate utilization of cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2008; 69(4): 16971.10.4088/JCP.v69n0423aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belloch, A, Del Valle, G, Morillo, C, Carrió, C, Cabedo, E. To seek advice or not to seek advice about the problem: the help-seeking dilemma for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2009; 44: 257–64.10.1007/s00127-008-0423-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, R, Koenen, KC, Hellman, F, Guardino, M, Struening, E. Helpseeking and access to mental health treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002; 106(2): 143–9.10.1034/j.1600-0447.2002.01221.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marques, L, LeBlanc, NJ, Weingarden, HM, Timpano, KR, Jenike, M, Wilhelm, S. Barriers to treatment and service utilization in an internet sample of individuals with obsessive–compulsive symptoms. Depress Anxiety 2010; 27(5): 470–5.10.1002/da.20694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, ME, Krafft, J, Levin, C. Does self-help increase rates of help seeking for student mental health problems by minimizing stigma as a barrier? J Am Coll Health 2018; 66(4): 302–9.10.1080/07448481.2018.1440580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder: Core Interventions in the Treatment of Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder and Body Dysmorphic Disorder CG31. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2005a.Google Scholar
Andersson, G, Titov, N, Dear, BF, Rozental, A, Carlbring, P. Internet-delivered psychological treatments: from innovation to implementation. World Psychiatry 2019; 18(1): 20–8.10.1002/wps.20610CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tie, H, Krebs, G, Lang, K, Shearer, J, Turner, C, Mataix-Cols, D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of telephone cognitive–behaviour therapy for adolescents with obsessive–compulsive disorder. BJPsych Open 2019; 5(1): e7.10.1192/bjo.2018.73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, E, Hedman, E, Ljótsson, B, Wikström, M, Elveling, E, Lindefors, N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: results from a randomized controlled trial. J Obsessive-Compulsive Relat Disord 2015; 4: 47–53.10.1016/j.jocrd.2014.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öst, L-G, Havnen, A, Hansen, B, Kvale, G. Cognitive behavioral treatments of obsessive–compulsive disorder a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published 1993–2014. Clin Psychol Rev 2015; 40: 156–69.10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart of study selection and inclusion.ICTRP, international clinical trials registry platform; CNKI, China National Knowledge Infrastructure; ChiCTR, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; OCD, obsessive–compulsive disorder.

Figure 1

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies in effectiveness and acceptability network

Figure 2

Figure 2 Network plot of meta-analysis. The size of node and thickness of edges were based on the number of studies on that comparison.Ind, individual; Grp, group; RD, remote-delivery; FI, family involved; GSH, guided self-help; USH, unguided self-help; TI, time intensive; WL, waitlist; pill p, pill placebo; Psy p, psychological placebo; CAU, care-as-usual.

Figure 3

Table 2 Network meta-analyses of cognitive–behavioural therapy delivery formats for obsessive–compulsive disorder

Figure 4

Figure 3 Ranked forest plot of effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive–behavioural therapy formats.SMD, standard mean difference; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; RR, relative risk.

Supplementary material: File

Wang et al. supplementary material

Wang et al. supplementary material
Download Wang et al. supplementary material(File)
File 531.9 KB

This journal is not currently accepting new eletters.

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.