The effectiveness of unguided self-help psychological interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based psychological interventions exist for individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but many individuals with OCD are unable to access them because of barriers, such as geographical isolation, treatment cost, and stigma etc. Unguided self-help psychological intervention has emerged as a potential solution to this problem. However, there is limited research on its overall effectiveness. This study aimed to address this gap.

Methods: Comprehensive searches from inception to 1st Jan 2023 were conducted in both international (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, International clinical trials registry platform of WHO) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WeiPu, WanFang, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry) databases. The registered protocol is accessible at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FKB5W. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unguided self-help psychological interventions to control groups for individuals with OCD. The primary outcome was OCD symptom severity, with Hedges' g calculated post-intervention. Heterogeneity was deemed to be low, moderate, and high if the I² value was quantified 25%, 50%, and 75% respectively. Relative Risks (RRs) was calculated for dropout rates post-intervention. Random-effects models were used for all analyses.

Results: 12 RCTs comparing unguided self-help psychological interventions to control groups were identified, with a total of 20 comparisons and 769 OCD patients. Overall, unguided self-help psychological interventions demonstrated a significant moderate effect on reducing OCD symptom severity (g = -0.42; 95% CI [-0.69; -0.14]) compared to control groups, with a moderate heterogeneity (I² = 59%; 95% CI [22.73; 78.38]). This finding remained significant in sensitivity analyses for the self-rated Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS; k = 7, g = -0.46; 95% CI [-0.71; -0.2]) and after removing an outlier (g = -0.37; 95% CI [-0.55; -0.19]), but not for the clinician-rated Y-BOCS (k = 4, g = -0.78; 95% CI [-2.75; 1.19]) and Obsessive Compulsive Inventory-Revised (k = 6, g = -0.26; 95% CI [-0.53; 0]). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant difference in effect size between studies conducting intention-to-treat and completers-only analyses (p = .01). The completers-only analyses demonstrated a moderate significant effect (g = -0.65; 95% CI [-1.08; -0.21]), whereas the effect of the intention-to-treat analyses was not significant (g = -0.18; 95% CI [-0.36; 0]). Participants in the unguided self-help groups exhibited a significantly higher dropout rate (RR = 2.08; 95% CI [1.53; 2.81]) compared to control groups. Furthermore, participants recruited from the community had a higher likelihood of dropping out compared to those recruited from clinical settings (p < .001). Additionally, participants who received cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention were more likely to drop out than those who received other types of intervention (p < .001). Most trials (92%) were rated at a high risk of bias.

Conclusion: Unguided self-help psychological interventions demonstrate potential effectiveness in alleviating OCD symptom severity post-intervention. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the results due to high risk of bias across trials and the relatively small sample size. And the considerable dropout rate might hinder treatment effects. Future studies with strict methodology should investigate the long-term effectiveness of unguided self-help psychological interventions for OCD, explore the reasons for high dropout rates, and improve intervention adherence.

Keywords: Obsessive-compulsive disorder; meta-analysis; psychological intervention; unguided self-help.