We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Reassurance seeking (RS) in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is commonly addressed in cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) using a technique called reducing accommodation. Reducing accommodation is a behaviourally based CBT intervention that may be effective; however, there is a lack of controlled research on its use and acceptability to clients/patients, and case studies suggest that it can be associated with negative emotional/behavioural consequences. Providing support to encourage coping with distress is a cognitively based CBT intervention that may be an effective alternative, but lacks evidence regarding its acceptability.
Aims:
This study aimed to determine whether support provision may be a more acceptable/endorsed CBT intervention for RS than a strict reducing accommodation approach.
Method:
Participants and familiar partners (N = 179) read vignette descriptions of accommodation reduction and support interventions, and responded to measures of perceived intervention acceptability/adhereability and endorsement, before completing a forced-choice preference task.
Results:
Overall, findings suggested that participants and partners gave significantly higher ratings for the support than the accommodation reduction intervention (partial η2 = .049 to .321). Participants and partners also both selected the support intervention more often than the traditional reducing accommodation intervention when given the choice.
Conclusions:
Support provision is perceived as an acceptable CBT intervention for RS by participants and their familiar partners. These results have implications for cognitive behavioural theory and practice related to RS.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.