4.4 Review

Treatment of specific phobia in adults

Journal

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 266-286

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.10.002

Keywords

specific phobia; systematic desensitization; cognitive behavior therapy; exposure therapy; virtual reality; medication; follow-up

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [T32 MH015144] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [T32MH015144] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This is a comprehensive review of treatment studies in specific phobia. Acute and long-term efficacy studies of in vivo exposure, virtual reality, cognitive therapy and other treatments from 1960 to 2005 were retrieved from computer search engines. Although specific phobia is a chronic illness and animal extinction studies suggest that relapse is a common phenomenon, little is known about long-term outcome. Treatment gains are generally maintained for one year, but longer follow-up studies are needed to better understand and prevent relapse. Acutely, the treatments are not equally effective among the phobia subtypes. Most phobias respond robustly to in vivo exposure, but it is associated with high dropout rates and low treatment acceptance. Response to systematic desensitization is more moderate. A few studies suggest that virtual reality may be effective in flying and height phobia, but this needs to be substantiated by more controlled trials. Cognitive therapy is most helpful in claustrophobia, and blood-injury phobia is uniquely responsive to applied tension. The limited data on medication have not been promising with the exception of adjunctive D-clycoserine. Despite the acute benefits of in vivo exposure, greater attention should be paid to improve treatment acceptance and retention, and additional controlled studies of more acceptable treatments are needed. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available