4.6 Article

BARRIERS TO TREATMENT AND SERVICE UTILIZATION IN AN INTERNET SAMPLE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE SYMPTOMS

Journal

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 470-475

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/da.20694

Keywords

OCD; treatment utilization; barriers to treatment; internet study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Despite the increasing dissemination of treatment for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) in the past decade, the majority of individuals with OCD are not receiving appropriate treatment. This study examined rates of treatment utilization and barriers to treatment in an internet sample of individuals with self-reported OCD. Methods: One hundred and seventy-five participants completed an online survey examining OCD symptoms, psychosocial measures, barriers to treatment, and treatment utilization. Results: Sixty percent of the sample reported receiving treatment for their OCD symptoms. The majority of participants who sought pharmacotherapy received SSRIs, whereas the majority who sought psychotherapeutic treatment received talk therapy. The cost of treatment, lack of insurance coverage, shame, and doubt that treatment would be effective were the most commonly endorsed barriers to treatment among the sample. Conclusions: Findings demonstrated relatively low treatment utilization rates among the sample, with many participants receiving treatments other than the gold-standard medication and psychotherapy treatments (i.e. SSRIs and cognitive behavioral therapy, respectively). Furthermore, a large portion of the sample endorsed many barriers to treatment seeking, such as logistic and financial barriers; stigma, shame, and discrimination barriers; and treatment perception and satisfaction barriers. This study highlights the need for more effective treatment dissemination in OCD. Depression and Anxiety 27:470-475, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available