RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: While exposure and response prevention (ERP) is the first-line treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), up to half of patients do not effectively respond. In an effort to better understand the mechanisms behind ERP, the inhibitory learning model emphasizes the roles of increasing perceived self-efficacy and distress tolerance. While self-efficacy and distress tolerance have separately been shown to predict OCD symptoms and treatment outcomes, no studies have assessed their joint effects in ERP. The current study examined distress tolerance as a mediator of the relationship between self-efficacy and ERP outcomes. METHODS: Patients in an intensive ERP-based treatment program (N = 116) completed weekly self-report measures. RESULTS: Over the course of treatment, as OCD symptoms reduced, self-efficacy and distress tolerance both significantly increased. Importantly, increases in self-efficacy and distress tolerance mediated each other in explaining symptom reduction, suggesting a possible bi-directional effect. LIMITATIONS: The temporal relationship between changes in self-efficacy and distress tolerance is worthy of further investigation. In addition, the current sample had limited racial diversity and might not be representative of patients receiving lower levels of care. Findings merit replication to be ascertained of their reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that during ERP, patients gain confidence in their abilities both to cope with general challenges and to withstand distress, potentially helping them engage with exposures and overcome initial fears. These findings provide support for the inhibitory learning model and highlight the mechanistic roles of self-efficacy and distress tolerance in ERP. Clinical implications to target both in treatment are discussed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Maximizing the discrepancy between expected and actual outcomes during exposure (i.e., expectancy violation) is thought to optimize inhibitory learning. The current study examined Craske et al.'s suggestion that engaging in cognitive restructuring (CR) before exposure prematurely reduces expectancy and mitigates outcomes. Participants (N = 93) with claustrophobia were randomly assigned to either 15 minutes of CR before exposure (CR Before) or 15 minutes of CR after exposure (CR After). Although the CR Before condition experienced greater expectancy reduction before exposure than the CR After condition, both groups experienced similar overall expectancy reduction by the end of the intervention. Groups experienced similar gains, with large significant improvement at posttreatment and follow-up. Results suggest that both cognitive therapy and exposure therapy lead to expectancy reduction, but that the order of these interventions does not impact outcome. Clinicaltrials.org registration #NCT03628105.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Novel suggestions derived from the inhibitory learning model on how to optimize exposure therapy have been debated with enthusiasm in the last few years, particularly with respect to the focus on expectancy violations. However, little is known about how this new approach directly compares to the traditional habituation rationale of exposure therapy. In the present study, we examined these two competing therapeutic instructions among healthy female participants in an experimental heat pain paradigm. DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants (N= 116) received a therapeutic instruction derived from either a habituation-based approach or the inhibitory learning model (expectation violation). Participants were repeatedly exposed to painful thermal stimulations until a predefined exposure goal was reached. RESULTS: The expectation violation instruction led to faster goal attainment and higher response rates than the habituation instruction. Both instructions led to increased pain tolerance in the short and long term (one-week follow-up). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that exposure treatments using an expectation violation instruction are especially time-effective. Although the findings from this analogue design cannot be directly generalized to populations with clinically relevant levels of chronic pain, they do point to some important theoretical and clinical implications for the treatment of pain.