Skip to main content
International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology logoLink to International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology
. 2018 Sep 3;21(11):1007–1013. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyy079

From Treatment Response to Recovery: A Realistic Goal in OCD

Elisabetta Burchi 1,2,, Eric Hollander 2, Stefano Pallanti 2,3,4
PMCID: PMC6209853  PMID: 30184141

Abstract

Despite longitudinal studies reporting symptomatic remission rates ranging from 32% to 70%, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is considered a persistent and very disabling disorder. However, these studies suggest that recovery can be a realistic goal for a subgroup of the Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder population and that a clear definition of recovery is timely in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. The aim of this paper is to discuss the dimensions of and propose an operational definition of recovery in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Considering the impact generated by the definition of recovery for other mental disorders, this article discusses how this concept may shape the future of research and clinical practice in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Ultimately, the hope is that the management of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder may parallel, and expand upon, some of the current approaches implemented in the care of schizophrenia, so that early diagnosis, stepped-care techniques, and a personalized approach can be used to create recovery-oriented treatment programs and influence policy making for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

Keywords: recovery, remission, OCD, resistance, early diagnosis

Introduction

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is considered a persistent and highly disabling condition. More than 15 years ago, we examined the methodological issues related to refractoriness in OCD and suggested that the lack of consistent definitions was the main factor that prevented the development of a cumulative body of data on homogenous samples of “nonresponsive” patients and consequently the implementation of second-line treatments (Pallanti et al., 2002). At that time we proposed the use of operational definitions for the stages and levels of response based on the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) (Guy 1976) and the Yale–Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) (Goodman et al., 1989). These definitions were intended to enable data comparisons across studies and promote recategorization of patients in the clinical setting.

While the definition of such grades of nonresponse has helped in collecting data among different studies in this difficult to treat population, attention to the subpopulation of long-term responsive subjects is still neglected.

Effectively, resistance is often defined as the lack of response following the trial of just 1 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) in research as well in clinical practice. This is critical in 2 ways: first, as it represents something of a tautology, defining OCD on the basis of the response to a specific treatment, and second, because it implies that SSRIs are all equivalent, neglecting the fact that every so-called “SSRI” has its own specific mechanism and target of action, as clearly described by the Neuroscience Based Nomenclature of drugs. If responsiveness is defined as improvement from one SSRI, then it seems likely that there has been an overestimation of resistance based on this limited definition. Moreover, this view leads to the management of OCD as a homogeneous disorder, with the consequence that trials may fail to adequately account for the actual heterogeneity and high degree of comorbidity found in OCD.

The definition and characterization of “treatment-resistant OCD” remains a significant challenge for clinicians and is not adequately considered in the current guidelines (NICE 2006; APA 2007). This has helped in fostering studies and recommendations with several different algorithms for patients whose symptoms fail to respond adequately to first-line treatments (Pallanti et al., 2014; Van Ameringen et al., 2014; Grant et al., 2016; Menchón et al., 2016).

Traditionally in psychiatric disorders, response has been conceptualized as a short-term improvement in symptoms, while remission has been characterized by a significant reduction in symptoms, typically below the threshold utilized for the initial diagnosis.

In recent years, the concept of “recovery”, broadly intended as sustained symptom remission along with return of function to premorbid levels (Andreasen et al., 2005), has gained increasing attention in psychiatry, directing research and clinical practice for disorders that are usually considered chronic and intractable. This is the case for schizophrenia, where the implementation of recovery-oriented programs has led to a great improvement in both symptomatic and functional outcomes (White et al., 2018).

However, the concept of recovery has not yet been applied to OCD, where generally “response” as opposed to “recovery” has been considered a reasonable outcome. Treatment response in OCD (typically a reduction of 25%–35% in the YBOCS) can convey a relative meaning in terms of clinical significance, and still correspond to high levels of disability (Farris et al., 2013; Macy et al., 2013). Moreover, the definition of treatment response in OCD is perhaps less compelling than that for anxiety disorders, where it is generally defined as at least a 50% reduction in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) score from baseline (Sheehan, 2001; Bandelow, 2006).

The current low-outcome expectations in OCD and the apparent benefit conveyed by the introduction of the concept of recovery for other severe mental disorders prompted us to investigate this idea in OCD. Hence, our goal is to propose an operational definition of recovery that could be realistically applied in research and clinical practice.

Outcomes in OCD: is Recovery a realistic goal? The Myth of the negative prognosis

To propose a definition of recovery in OCD that would be consistent with expectations for optimal outcome, it is important to evaluate existing studies reporting short- and long-term treatment outcomes.

Short-Term Clinical Trials on SSRIs and CBT

For the most part, randomized control trials investigating the efficacy of SSRIs and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) in OCD have a mean duration of almost 12 weeks (Pizarro et al., 2014; Öst et al., 2015). These studies, designed to focus on short-term improvements, use response rather than recovery as the standard measure of treatment efficacy, usually operationalized as a reduction of at least 25% in the YBOCS or as a score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) on the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. Meta-analyses of these studies demonstrated that these treatments conferred statistically significant changes in OCD (Soomro et al., 2008; Olatunji et al., 2013; Öst et al., 2015). Nonetheless, it is critical to consider that effect sizes do not necessarily correlate with clinically significant improvement. Few studies describe the clinical significance of response to treatment, using different cut-offs in severity scores ranging from 16 to 7 points at the YBOCS, to define the percentage of patients that rated in the subclinical range (Soomro et al., 2008; Olatunji et al., 2013; Öst et al., 2015). A recent meta-analysis (McGuire et al., 2015) examined diagnostic remission for youth with OCD receiving either CBT or serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) relative to the control conditions. Defining remission as reaching a CY-BOCS of 14 or as a reduction of 40% to 50% in CY-BOCS, that study remarkably found that the average remission rate across trials was 57% for CBT and 47% for SRIs.

Longitudinal Studies

Prospective studies conducted in the pre-SRIs/CBT treatment era found that spontaneous remission, with recovery defined as absence of clinically significant symptoms for 1 to 5 years, ranged between 20% and 30% (Goodwin, et al., 1969; Skoog and Skoog, 1999). A meta-analysis of long-term (≥1 year) studies in adult patients with OCD treated with SRIs or CBT found that more than one-half of the patients achieved remission, defined as a YBOCS rating <16 over 5 years of follow-up (Sharma et al., 2014). Remission rates reported in child or adolescent studies tend to be even higher (32%–70%) (Marcks et al., 2011). A very recent 3-year naturalistic outcome study conducted in 109 children and adolescents with OCD treated with CBT and augmented when indicated by SSRIs, and eventually a second-generation antipsychotic, studied response and remission (Melin et al., 2018). This study defined treatment response as a CY-BOCS total score ≤15 and remission as CY-BOCS total score ≤10. In this group, 66.1% participants were found to be in remission, while another 19.2% had responded to treatment at the 3-year follow-up. The results also indicate that improvement was found with regard to psycho-social functioning as measured by Children’s OCD Impact Scale (COIS). Overall, longitudinal studies suggest that the prognosis in OCD is more favorable than is often believed (Sharma et al., 2014). Furthermore, the results show that full remission, defined as the absence of symptoms, minimizes the risk of relapse with a rate of recurrence 7% at year 1, 15% at year 3, and 25% at year 5 and beyond (Marcks et al., 2011; Eisen et al., 2013).

Summary

Short-term clinical trials are important in identifying therapeutic strategies and response rates; however, they may be limited in the ability to predict the potential for long-term remission of symptoms. Contrary to generally held beliefs and despite the differences in reported rates of remission, in part due to the heterogeneity of the disorder and different methods of defining remission, there is evidence from prospective studies that in the long term, a substantial proportion of patients with OCD (ranging from 32% to 70%) have a sustained remission of symptoms. Moreover, full remission has been associated with a lower risk of relapse.

Recovery: Application of the concept to OCD

The concept of recovery in psychiatry has its roots in consumer advocacy. In the early 20th century, these groups claimed that people with severe mental illness could regain a complete state of health and function in society (Frese, 1998). With the development of psychopharmacotherapy and clinical trials, it became apparent that there was a need for consistency in defining criteria for both disease severity and response. At first, this process occurred for major depressive disorder, with the development of the HAM-D (Hamilton, 1960) that enabled clinical researchers to assess changes in symptoms over time and define response as a certain reduction in scores. However, the recurrence of episodes imposed the need to define concepts that incorporated criteria for both disease severity and duration of improvement. Consequently, remission and recovery were defined as maintenance of an endpoint score of <8 on the HAM-D for more than 2 and 6 months, respectively (Frank et al., 1991; Fava et al., 2007). Following this model, an expert working group proposed operational criteria for remission in schizophrenia (Andreasen et al., 2005). The main innovation was using a dimensional approach to describe the symptomatic domain. In addition, that working group concluded that subsequent definitions of recovery should also incorporate functional and cognitive outcomes. Although no clear consensus exists, the ultimate goal of recovery in schizophrenia includes sustained symptom resolution and return to full function (Liberman and Kopelowicz, 2005; Leucht, 2014).

Hence, as we have tried to illustrate, if the current data about outcomes in OCD justify better expectations for a disorder that is often considered severe and enduring, and the conceptualization and operational definitions of remission and recovery have led to important improvement in the standard of care of other mental disorders, then focusing on remission and recovery in OCD may be critical in optimizing the treatment.

There are several issues to consider in optimizing an operational definition of recovery in OCD.

Symptomatic Criteria

The first issue is whether one continuous measure such as the YBOCS is sufficient to assess the heterogeneity of symptoms in OCD. Factor analytic studies indicate that OCD encompasses 3 to 5 different obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions that account for 70% of the variance (McKay et al., 2004; Mataix-Cols et al., 2005; Bloch et al., 2008). The YBOCS is not as sensitive in detecting avoidance and hoarding, and other scales have been proposed to overcome these limitations such as the Dimensional Yale-Brown obsessive-compulsive scale (Rosario-Campos et al., 2006).

The second issue is how to assess the clinical impact of a reduction in symptoms. A relative reduction in the YBOCS or attainment of an absolute cut-off are the most widely used measures of symptomatic response and remission in OCD, though neither is sufficient to capture the clinical significance. The combination of YBOCS and CGI-S scores has been reliably used to describe clinical severity in OCD, linking symptoms to clinical significance. Signal detection analysis used to compare judgments of remission at various discrimination thresholds on symptom measures using the YBOCS, showed that a posttreatment YBOCS score of ≤14 was the best predictor of symptom remission defined as having mild or no symptoms on the CGI-S, while a posttreatment YBOCS score of ≤12 was associated with a combination of minimal OCD severity and life satisfaction and adaptive functioning in adults measured by the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) and the Social Adjustment Scale (Farris et al., 2013). A raw YBOCS total score of 11 was also found to be predictive of symptomatic remission in pediatric OCD patients (Skarphedinsson et al., 2017).

Durational Criteria

The criterion of duration has been less investigated and varies between disorders. One multi-round web-based survey conducted among experts in the field of OCD proposed using 1 week for remission and 1 year for recovery (Mataix-Cols et al., 2016). In the Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation, 8 consecutive weeks of psychiatric status ratings of 2 or less was used to define recovery in anxiety disorders (Bruce et al., 2005). In schizophrenia, 3 to 6 months and 2 to 5 years have been proposed to define remission and recovery, respectively (Andreasen et al., 2005; Liberman and Kopelowicz, 2005; Jääskeläinen et al., 2013; Leucht, 2014). Given the severity of OCD, a conservative approach may be reasonable, and following the example of schizophrenia we may propose 12 weeks as a duration to define remission and 2 years to assess recovery.

Functional Criteria

Long-term symptomatic quiescence is a common but not absolute prerequisite for functional improvement (Iancu et al., 2014). Conversely, sometimes disability extinguishes even if symptoms remain present. Hence, it is important to assess objective and subjective functionality, independent of symptomatology, to derive a more complete measure of recovery.

The CGI-S is an important and reliable clinician-reported measure of functional changes. It is relatively coarse, however, and may fail to capture the subjective sense of self-improvement. There is the potential for significant functional improvement in various aspects of social and inter-personal function, for example, returning to school, obtaining employment, and sustaining personal relationships. Often these are the criteria by which patients judge whether a treatment is successful. Hence, a subjective evaluation of patients’ assessment of their own functional improvement, which we may better define as quality of life, is likely to be a key ingredient in recovery. A useful tool to operationalize this experience may be the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), a 5-item scale that investigates an individual’s perception about the impact of the disorder on work, home management, social and private leisure activities, and close relationships. A total score <10 may be a good cut-off to indicate recovery (Mundt et al., 2002). A more detailed alternative may be the Q-LES-Q with a reliable cut-off score >70 (Farris et al., 2013). For children, the COIS children scale with a score <10 would be appropriate (Melin et al., 2018).

Cognitive Criteria

It is reasonable to consider the necessity of assessing the cognitive functioning as part of the determination of recovery in OCD. Overall, results from neuropsychological studies in OCD do not support the presence of clinically meaningful neuropsychological impairments either in adults or youth with OCD (Shin et al., 2014; Abramovitch et al., 2015), suggesting that such criteria should not be included.

Other Considerations

It may be important to consider another subjective facet in the definition of recovery. Every mental disorder intrinsically entails a component of self-stigma, but this is particularly true for OCD, where diminished self-esteem is related to the perceived ego-dystonicity of the symptoms and the insight harbored by a high proportion of patients (Catapano et al., 2001; Murphy and Perera-Delcourt 2014). Moreover, it is questionable how a term that derives from the Inquisition Era, such as “obsessive-compulsive disorder” referring to a lucid demonic possession (Robbins 1959), is still included in the current nosography. Renaming the disorder may have potentially destigmatizing effects as happened for manic-depressive disorder, where renaming it as bipolar disorder has contributed to increase the search for treatments, and more recently there has been an open discussion regarding renaming schizophrenia (Ellison et al., 2015). Hence, it is reasonable to consider if a comprehensive definition of recovery should include the evaluation of self-stigma using one of the scales developed, such as the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness scale (Boyd et al., 2014), where a total score <2 may be used to assess absence of internalized stigma (Lysaker et al., 2007).

Summary

Recovery in OCD may be operationally defined using a combination of symptomatic, durational, and functional (objective and subjective) criteria. According to current evidence, a YBOCS score of ≤12 may be a good cut-off to predict a clinical state where, if residual symptoms are present, they do not interfere with everyday life. A CGI-S score of 1 should also be satisfied in addition to self-reported functional measure such as the WSAS or the COIS. A duration of 2 years, following the example of schizophrenia, may be proposed as an appropriate duration (Table 1).

Table 1.

Proposed Operational Definition of Recovery in OCD

Facets Criteria
Symptomatic YBOCS score ≤12
CGI-S score of 1
Duration 2 years
Functional Q-LES-Q >70 or
WSAS <10
COIS <10 (in children)

Abbreviations: CGI-S, Clinical Global Impression Scale; COIS, Children’s OCD Impact Scale; Q-LES-Q, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire; WSAS, Work and Social Adjustment Scale; YBOCS, Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale.

Recovery-Oriented Program in OCD: what we already have, what has to be done

The definition of recovery is critical, but by itself, is not sufficient. The broader goal is to implement recovery-oriented programs. Such programs should include approaches to improving early diagnosis, providing a stepped-care approach, and ultimately moving toward personalized treatments.

Early Diagnosis

Evidence shows that early diagnosis and treatment are positively related to outcome in OCD (Burchi and Pallanti, 2018). However, OCD has one of the longest durations of untreated illness among psychiatric disorders with a delay between the onset of symptoms and the beginning of the first appropriate treatment in patients that eventually receive treatment that ranges from 7.75 (Italy) to 17 years (USA) (García-Soriano et al., 2014) In fact, OCD is often unrecognized and undertreated (Dell’Osso and Altamura, 2015). It has been estimated that between 38% and 89.90% of OCD sufferers neither ask for nor receive treatment (Goodwin et al., 2002; Mayerovitch et al., 2003; Subramaniam et al., 2012).

The belief that one can manage symptoms on his/her own, that OC symptoms are not associated with an illness, and the spontaneous fluctuation of symptoms were found to be the main reasons for delay in seeking treatment (Poyraz et al., 2015). Poor recognition of harm and taboo content were identified as reasons for underdiagnosis (García-Soriano et al., 2014). Moreover, the separation of OCD from the chapter of anxiety disorders in the DSM-5 may have decreased detection of these cases, especially in pediatric patients, who present prodromally with anxiety (Juckel et al., 2014; Burchi and Pallanti, 2018). This suggests the necessity of improving early detection of cases and sensitivity of assessment.

Based on the introduction of the attenuated psychotic syndrome, there may be an important opportunity to define subsyndromal OCD. The definition of such a condition may help identify people at risk of developing OCD and increasing early diagnosis (Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2014). Education programs should be addressed to the general population with special emphasis on children, parents, and teachers but also to general practitioners (García-Soriano et al., 2014).

Further studies should be implemented to find external validators of the syndrome in the realms of brain connectivity, immunology, and inflammatory changes, eventually to be used as early biomarkers to identify prodromal OCD. An abundance of research has accumulated on potential biomarkers for OCD such as alterations in cortico-striatal thalamic circuits, alterations in plasma concentrations of hormones (i.e., cortisol), cytokines (i.e., IL1Beta, TNF-alfa), white blood cells (i.e., circulating natural killer cells and monocytes) and antibodies (i.e., antineural and D8/D17 antibody titers), alterations in electroencephalographic parameters (i.e., error related negativity amplitudes), and in genes involving serotonine and glutamate trafficking (Bandelow et al., 2017; Rodríguez et al., 2017). Currently, none of the putative biomarkers has sufficient specificity and sensitivity as a diagnostic tool, and increasing efforts may be needed to develop an assessment that integrates genetics with neuroimaging, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, and neuropsychology.

Stepped-Care Approach

In recent years, understanding of the heterogeneity of schizophrenia and the expectation for better outcomes has led to the implementation of recovery-oriented programs and new collaborative care models for affected patients (Davidson et al., 2005), with evidence of improvement in outcomes (Kidd et al., 2011; Röhricht et al., 2017). An analogous process would also be appropriate for OCD. The specific need for increasing efficiency of service provision in the care of OCD patients is recognized by guidelines that recommend management of these patients using a “stepped-care” approach (NICE, 2006). However, there is no clear guidance in the choice of treatments beyond the first line. The lack of a definition of a treatment algorithm and the inconclusive results on second-line strategies in OCD are in part explained by the lack of studies that stratify the heterogeneous OCD phenotype. These factors, along with the focus on response to SSRIs, likely result in an overestimation of resistance of OCD and the lack of implementation of a stepped-care approach. There is still need for studies that stratify for ongoing medication (in type and dosage), for intrinsic characteristics of subjects (i.e., gender), and for characteristics of the disorder (type of onset, clinical staging, dimensions). There is also need for sequential treatment studies of adequate duration where patients enter the augmentation level only if they fail to adequately respond to the first defined intervention. The importance of integrated therapies in the care of OCD patients is well established by the fact that the best outcomes are enjoyed using combination therapies (Pallanti et al., 2002; Fineberg et al., 2013; Sharma et al., 2014). Models of an integrative approach that use combinations of pharmacotherapy with CBT, in a timely fashion, should be implemented. Given the unique nature of OCD and the involvement of family members with the symptomatology (Black et al., 1998), such an integrated approach should not neglect the intervention on families, especially in youth with OCD. The relationship between OCD severity and family accommodation (Wu et al., 2016) strongly supports the importance of a systematic and multidimensional treatment strategy employing structured programs.

Conclusion: Towards a personalized treatment

The definition of recovery is a realistic goal in OCD, especially in youth, and helps address the challenges present in the treatment of this difficult condition (Table 2). It suggests that there should be greater efforts toward early diagnosis, increased attention toward poorly recognized symptom dimensions, implementation of educational programs, and perhaps the definition of a subsyndromal condition that can detect prodromal signs of the disorder. It also calls for the implementation of stepped and stratified care programs redefining treatment expectations and providing a benchmark for longitudinal assessment of disease course.

Table 2.

Clinical Points

The importance of considering recovery in OCD
• Improve early diagnosis
• Give realistic hope to patients and advocacy groups
• Reduce stigma
• Increase effort and responsibility toward patients
• Increase treatment proactivity toward children and recent onset cases
• Prevent relapse and progression to chronicity and disability
• Inform new studies looking for definition of stepped/stratified care algorithm
• Orient the reimbursement to increase the investment for a treatable condition

The inclusion of recovery as one of the possible outcomes for OCD would attract more patients to treatment and reduce the duration of untreated illness, one of major cause of negative outcome. In addition, the prospect of recovery might impact policy-making and support funding for recovery-oriented programs, hopefully generating a virtuous circle.

We think that a recovery-oriented approach would eventually reshape the assessment of individual patients, foster a multidimensional assessment, and ultimately lead to a more personalized and likely much more successful treatment.

Statement of Interest

None

References

  1. Abramovitch A, Abramowitz JS, Mittelman A, Stark A, Ramsey K, Geller DA(2015)Research review: neuropsychological test performance in pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder–a meta-analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 56:837–847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andreasen NC, Carpenter WT Jr, Kane JM, Lasser RA, Marder SR, Weinberger DR(2005)Remission in schizophrenia: proposed criteria and rationale for consensus. Am J Psychiatry 162:441–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. APA (2007)American psychiatric association: practice guideline for the treatment of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandelow B.(2006)Defining response and remission in anxiety disorders: toward an integrated approach. CNS Spectr 11:21–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandelow B, et al. (2017)Biological markers for anxiety disorders, OCD and PTSD: a consensus statement. Part II: neurochemistry, neurophysiology and neurocognition. World J Biol Psychiatry 18:162–214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Black DW, Gaffney G, Schlosser S, Gabel J(1998)The impact of obsessive-compulsive disorder on the family: preliminary findings. J Nerv Ment Dis 186:440–442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloch MH, Landeros-Weisenberger A, Rosario MC, Pittenger C, Leckman JF(2008)Meta-analysis of the symptom structure of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 165:1532–1542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyd JE, Adler EP, Otilingam PG, Peters T(2014)Internalized stigma of mental illness (ISMI) scale: a multinational review. Compr Psychiatry 55:221–231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruce SE, Yonkers KA, Otto MW, Eisen JL, Weisberg RB, Pagano M, Shea MT, Keller MB(2005)Influence of psychiatric comorbidity on recovery and recurrence in generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, and panic disorder: a 12-year prospective study. Am J Psychiatry 162:1179–1187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Burchi E, Pallanti S(2018)Diagnostic issues in early-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder and their treatment implications. Curr Neuropharmacol doi: 10.2174/1570159X16666180426151746. E-pub ahead of print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Catapano F, Sperandeo R, Perris F, Lanzaro M, Maj M(2001)Insight and resistance in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychopathology 34:62–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Davidson L, Lawless MS, Leary F(2005)Concepts of recovery: competing or complementary?Curr Opin Psychiatry 18:664–667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dell’Osso B, Altamura AC(2015)Prevalent burdensome mental disorders remain untreated for years: manifesto for early diagnosis and treatment. Acad Psychiatry 39:231–232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisen JL, Sibrava NJ, Boisseau CL, Mancebo MC, Stout RL, Pinto A, Rasmussen SA(2013)Five-year course of obsessive-compulsive disorder: predictors of remission and relapse. J Clin Psychiatry 74:233–239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellison N, Mason O, Scior K(2015)Renaming schizophrenia to reduce stigma: comparison with the case of bipolar disorder. Br J Psychiatry 206:341–342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Farris SG, McLean CP, Van Meter PE, Simpson HB, Foa EB(2013)Treatment response, symptom remission, and wellness in obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 74:685–690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fava GA, Ruini C, Belaise C(2007)The concept of recovery in major depression. Psychol Med 37:307–317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fineberg NA, Reghunandanan S, Brown A, Pampaloni I(2013)Pharmacotherapy of obsessive-compulsive disorder: evidence-based treatment and beyond. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 47:121–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Frank E, Prien RF, Jarrett RB, Keller MB, Kupfer DJ, Lavori PW, Rush AJ, Weissman MM(1991)Conceptualization and rationale for consensus definitions of terms in major depressive disorder. Remission, recovery, relapse, and recurrence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 48:851–855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Frese FJ., 3rd(1998)Advocacy, recovery, and the challenges of consumerism for schizophrenia. Psychiatr Clin North Am 21:233–249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. García-Soriano G, Rufer M, Delsignore A, Weidt S(2014)Factors associated with non-treatment or delayed treatment seeking in OCD sufferers: a review of the literature. Psychiatry Res 220:1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodman WK, Price LH, Rasmussen SA, Mazure C, Fleischmann RL, Hill CL, Heninger GR, Charney DS(1989)The Yale-Brown obsessive compulsive scale. I. Development, use, and reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry 46:1006–1011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Goodwin DW, Guze SB, Robins E(1969)Follow-up studies in obsessional neurosis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 20:182–187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Goodwin R, Koenen KC, Hellman F, Guardino M, Struening E(2002)Helpseeking and access to mental health treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 106:143–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Grant JE, Fineberg N, van Ameringen M, Cath D, Visser H, Carmi L, Pallanti S, Hollander E, van Balkom AJ(2016)New treatment models for compulsive disorders. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 26:877–884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Guy W.(1976). Clinical global impression scale (CGI) ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: US Department of Heath, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hamilton M.(1960)A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23:56–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Iancu SC, Batelaan NM, Zweekhorst MB, Bunders JF, Veltman DJ, Penninx BW, van Balkom AJ(2014)Trajectories of functioning after remission from anxiety disorders: 2-year course and outcome predictors. Psychol Med 44:593–605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jääskeläinen E, Juola P, Hirvonen N, McGrath JJ, Saha S, Isohanni M, Veijola J, Miettunen J(2013)A systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 39:1296–1306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Juckel G, Siebers F, Kienast T, Mavrogiorgou P(2014)Early recognition of obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis 202:889–891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kidd SA, George L, O’Connell M, Sylvestre J, Kirkpatrick H, Browne G, Odueyungbo AO, Davidson L(2011)Recovery-oriented service provision and clinical outcomes in assertive community treatment. Psychiatr Rehabil J 34:194–201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Leucht S.(2014)Measurements of response, remission, and recovery in schizophrenia and examples for their clinical application. J Clin Psychiatry 75:8–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Liberman RP, Kopelowicz A (2005)Recovery from schizophrenia: a concept in search of research. Psychiatr Serv 56:735–742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lysaker PH, Roe D, Yanos PT(2007)Toward understanding the insight paradox: internalized stigma moderates the association between insight and social functioning, hope, and self-esteem among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Schizophr Bull 33:192–199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Macy AS, Theo JN, Kaufmann SC, Ghazzaoui RB, Pawlowski PA, Fakhry HI, Cassmassi BJ, IsHak WW(2013)Quality of life in obsessive compulsive disorder. CNS Spectr 18:21–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Marcks BA, Weisberg RB, Dyck I, Keller MB(2011)Longitudinal course of obsessive-compulsive disorder in patients with anxiety disorders: a 15-year prospective follow-up study. Compr Psychiatry 52:670–677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mataix-Cols D, Fernández de la Cruz L, Nordsletten AE, Lenhard F, Isomura K, Simpson HB(2016)Towards an international expert consensus for defining treatment response, remission, recovery and relapse in obsessive-compulsive disorder. World Psychiatry 15:80–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mataix-Cols D, Rosario-Campos MC, Leckman JF(2005)A multidimensional model of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 162:228–238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mayerovitch JI, du Fort GG, Kakuma R, Bland RC, Newman SC, Pinard G(2003)Treatment seeking for obsessive-compulsive disorder: role of obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms and comorbid psychiatric diagnoses. Compr Psychiatry 44:162–168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. McGuire JF, Piacentini J, Lewin AB, Brennan EA, Murphy TK, Storch EA(2015)A meta-analysis of cognitive behavior therapy and medication for child obsessive-compulsive disorder: moderators of treatment efficacy, response, and remission. Depress Anxiety 32:580–593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McKay D, Abramowitz JS, Calamari JE, Kyrios M, Radomsky A, Sookman D, Taylor S, Wilhelm S(2004)A critical evaluation of obsessive-compulsive disorder subtypes: symptoms versus mechanisms. Clin Psychol Rev 24:283–313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Melin K, Skarphedinsson G, Skarsater I, Haugland BSM, Ivarsson T(2018)A solid majority remit following evidence-based OCD treatments: a 3-year naturalistic outcome study in pediatric OCD. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry doi: 10.1007/s00787-018-1137-9. E-pub ahead of print. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Menchón JM, et al. (2016)Standards of care for obsessive-compulsive disorder centres. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 20:204–208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Mundt JC, Marks IM, Shear MK, Greist JH(2002)The work and social adjustment scale: a simple measure of impairment in functioning. Br J Psychiatry 180:461–464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Murphy H, Perera-Delcourt R(2014)‘learning to live with OCD is a little mantra I often repeat’: understanding the lived experience of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in the contemporary therapeutic context. Psychol Psychother 87:111–125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. NICE (2006)Obsessive-compulsive disorder: core interventions in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Olatunji BO, Davis ML, Powers MB, Smits JA(2013)Cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis of treatment outcome and moderators. J Psychiatr Res 47:33–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Öst LG, Havnen A, Hansen B, Kvale G(2015)Cognitive behavioral treatments of obsessive-compulsive disorder. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published 1993-2014. Clin Psychol Rev 40:156–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Pallanti S, Hollander E, Bienstock C, Koran L, Leckman J, Marazziti D, Pato M, Stein D, Zohar J, International Treatment Refractory OCD Consortium (2002)Treatment non-response in OCD: methodological issues and operational definitions. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 5:181–191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Pallanti S, Grassi G, Cantisani A(2014)Emerging drugs to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 19:67–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pizarro M, Fontenelle LF, Paravidino DC, Yücel M, Miguel EC, de Menezes GB(2014)An updated review of antidepressants with marked serotonergic effects in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Expert Opin Pharmacother 15:1391–1401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Poyraz CA, Turan Ş, Sağlam NG, Batun GÇ, Yassa A, Duran A(2015)Factors associated with the duration of untreated illness among patients with obsessive compulsive disorder. Compr Psychiatry 58:88–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Robbins RH.(1959). Encyclopedia of witchcraft and demonology. London: Peter Nevill Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rodríguez N, Morer A, González-Navarro EA, Serra-Pages C, Boloc D, Torres T, García-Cerro S, Mas S, Gassó P, Lázaro L(2017)Inflammatory dysregulation of monocytes in pediatric patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Neuroinflammation 14:261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Röhricht F, Waddon GK, Binfield P, England R, Fradgley R, Hertel L, James P, Littlejohns J, Maher D, Oppong M(2017)Implementation of a novel primary care pathway for patients with severe and enduring mental illness. Bjpsych Bull 41:314–319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosario-Campos MC, Miguel EC, Quatrano S, Chacon P, Ferrao Y, Findley D, Katsovich L, Scahill L, King RA, Woody SR, Tolin D, Hollander E, Kano Y, Leckman JF(2006)The dimensional yale-brown obsessive-compulsive scale (DY-BOCS): an instrument for assessing obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions. Mol Psychiatry 11:495–504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Sharma E, Thennarasu K, Reddy YC(2014)Long-term outcome of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry 75:1019–1027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Sheehan DV.(2001)Attaining remission in generalized anxiety disorder: venlafaxine extended release comparative data. J Clin Psychiatry 62:26–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Shin NY, Lee TY, Kim E, Kwon JS(2014)Cognitive functioning in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med 44:1121–1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Skarphedinsson G, De Nadai AS, Storch EA, Lewin AB, Ivarsson T(2017)Defining cognitive-behavior therapy response and remission in pediatric OCD: a signal detection analysis of the children’s yale-brown obsessive compulsive scale. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 26:47–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Skoog G, Skoog I(1999)A 40-year follow-up of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder [see comments]. Arch Gen Psychiatry 56:121–127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Soomro GM, Altman D, Rajagopal S, Oakley-Browne M(2008)Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD001765. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001765.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Subramaniam M, Abdin E, Vaingankar JA, Chong SA(2012)Obsessive–compulsive disorder: prevalence, correlates, help-seeking and quality of life in a multiracial asian population. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 47:2035–2043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Ameringen M, Simpson W, Patterson B, Dell’Osso B, Fineberg N, Hollander E, Hranov L, Hranov G, Lochner C, Karamustafalioglu O, Marazziti D, Menchon JM, Nicolini H, Pallanti S, Stein DJ, Zohar J(2014)Pharmacological treatment strategies in obsessive compulsive disorder: a cross-sectional view in nine international OCD centers. J Psychopharmacol 28:596–602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. White C, Frimpong E, Huz S, Ronsani A, Radigan M(2018)Effects of the personalized recovery oriented services (PROS) program on hospitalizations. Psychiatr Q 89:261–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wolitzky-Taylor K, Dour H, Zinbarg R, Mineka S, Vrshek-Schallhorn S, Epstein A, Bobova L, Griffith J, Waters A, Nazarian M, Rose R, Craske MG(2014)Experiencing core symptoms of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders in late adolescence predicts disorder onset in early adulthood. Depress Anxiety 31:207–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wu MS, McGuire JF, Martino C, Phares V, Selles RR, Storch EA(2016)A meta-analysis of family accommodation and OCD symptom severity. Clin Psychol Rev 45:34–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES