Carolyn I Rodriguez1, Amanda Levinson2, Sapana R Patel3, Kim Rottier2, Jordana Zwerling4, Susan Essock3, Lee Shuer5, Randy O Frost6, Helen Blair Simpson3. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA. 2. Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY. 3. New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY1 10032; Columbia University, Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY 10032. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 5. Mutual Support Consulting, Easthampton, MA, 01027. 6. Smith College, Department of Psychology, Northampton, MA. 01063.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability of currently available treatments and services for individuals who self-report hoarding behaviors. METHOD: Between 10/2013 and 8/2014, participants were invited to complete an online survey that provided them descriptions of eleven treatments and services for hoarding behaviors and asked them to evaluate their acceptability using quantitative (0 [not at all acceptable] -10 [completely acceptable]) Likert scale ratings. The a priori definition of acceptability for a given resource was an average Likert scale score of six or greater. Two well-validated self-report measures assessed hoarding symptom severity: the Saving Inventory-Revised and the Clutter Image Rating Scale. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy two participants who self-reported having hoarding behaviors completed the questionnaire. Analyses focused on the 73% of responders (n=203) who reported clinically significant hoarding behaviors (i.e., Saving Inventory-Revised scores of ≥40). The three most acceptable treatments were individual cognitive behavioral therapy (6.2 ±3.1 on the Likert scale), professional organizing service (6.1 ±3.2), and use of a self-help book (6.0 ±3.0). CONCLUSION: In this sample of individuals with self-reported clinically significant hoarding behaviors (n=203), only 3 out of 11 treatments and services for hoarding were deemed acceptable using an a priori score. While needing replication, these findings indicate the need to design more acceptable treatments and services to engage clients and maximize treatment outcomes for hoarding disorder.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability of currently available treatments and services for individuals who self-report hoarding behaviors. METHOD: Between 10/2013 and 8/2014, participants were invited to complete an online survey that provided them descriptions of eleven treatments and services for hoarding behaviors and asked them to evaluate their acceptability using quantitative (0 [not at all acceptable] -10 [completely acceptable]) Likert scale ratings. The a priori definition of acceptability for a given resource was an average Likert scale score of six or greater. Two well-validated self-report measures assessed hoarding symptom severity: the Saving Inventory-Revised and the Clutter Image Rating Scale. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy two participants who self-reported having hoarding behaviors completed the questionnaire. Analyses focused on the 73% of responders (n=203) who reported clinically significant hoarding behaviors (i.e., Saving Inventory-Revised scores of ≥40). The three most acceptable treatments were individual cognitive behavioral therapy (6.2 ±3.1 on the Likert scale), professional organizing service (6.1 ±3.2), and use of a self-help book (6.0 ±3.0). CONCLUSION: In this sample of individuals with self-reported clinically significant hoarding behaviors (n=203), only 3 out of 11 treatments and services for hoarding were deemed acceptable using an a priori score. While needing replication, these findings indicate the need to design more acceptable treatments and services to engage clients and maximize treatment outcomes for hoarding disorder.
Authors: Carolyn I Rodriguez; Helen Blair Simpson; Shang-Min Liu; Amanda Levinson; Carlos Blanco Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: Eliza J Davidson; Mary E Dozier; James O E Pittman; Tina L Mayes; Brian H Blanco; John D Gault; Lauren J Schwarz; Catherine R Ayers Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Volen Z Ivanov; Jesper Enander; David Mataix-Cols; Eva Serlachius; Kristoffer N T Månsson; Gerhard Andersson; Oskar Flygare; David Tolin; Christian Rück Journal: J Clin Psychol Date: 2018-02-07