عنوان مقاله [English]
Introduction: Previous studies have confirmed the effectiveness of schema therapy and exposure and response prevention methods on obsession symptoms. The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of schema therapy(ST) and its combination with the exposure and response prevention method(STERP) on the severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms
Method: The method of this study was semi-experimental research with a control group. The statistical population included all women with washing obsessive-compulsive disorder referred to counseling centers in the north and center of Tehran from November to the February of 2020. A total of 45 were selected as research samples using a convenience sampling method and were randomly divided into two intervention groups and one control group(15 in each group). The first and second intervention groups were treated with schema therapy and a combination of schema therapy and exposure and response prevention methods during 12 and 14 sessions, respectively. Data were collected using the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Scale. To analyze the data, the analysis of covariance and the Bonferroni test was used.
Results: Both intervention methods ST and STERP were effective in reducing the severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms in women with washing obsessive-compulsive disorder (P<0.001). Also, STERP was more effective than ST in reducing the severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms in women with washing obsessive-compulsive disorder (P<0.001)and the results of the 2-month follow-up of the intervention showed the stability of treatment (P<0.001).
Conclusion: STERP may be a feasible and potentially effective treatment for prior non-responders among OCD patients and thus worth further investigation in randomized controlled trials.
41. Carter JD, McIntosh V, Jordan J, Porter RJ, Frampton CM, Joyce P. Psychotherapy for depression: a randomized clinical trial comparing schema therapy and cognitive behavior therapy. Journal of affective disorders. 2013; 151(2): 500–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.06.034