Title |
Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy Trial (OCTET) comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of self-managed therapies: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
Trials, July 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-15-278 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Judith Gellatly, Peter Bower, Dean McMillan, Christopher Roberts, Sarah Byford, Penny Bee, Simon Gilbody, Catherine Arundel, Gillian Hardy, Michael Barkham, Shirley Reynolds, Lina Gega, Patricia Mottram, Nicola Lidbetter, Rebecca Pedley, Emily Peckham, Janice Connell, Jo Molle, Neil O’Leary, Karina Lovell |
Abstract |
UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) specify recommendations for the treatment and management of OCD using a stepped care approach. Steps three to six of this model recommend treatment options for people with OCD that range from low-intensity guided self-help (GSH) to more intensive psychological and pharmacological interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), including exposure and response prevention, is the recommended psychological treatment. However, whilst there is some preliminary evidence that self-managed therapy packages for OCD can be effective, a more robust evidence base of their clinical and cost effectiveness and acceptability is required.Methods/design: Our proposed study will test two different self-help treatments for OCD: 1) computerised CBT (cCBT) using OCFighter, an internet-delivered OCD treatment package; and 2) GSH using a book. Both treatments will be accompanied by email or telephone support from a mental health professional. We will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and patient and health professional acceptability of the treatments. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 2 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 166 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 32 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 20 | 12% |
Student > Master | 16 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
Other | 29 | 17% |
Unknown | 35 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 48 | 28% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 17% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 9% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 4% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 3% |
Other | 23 | 14% |
Unknown | 43 | 25% |