Copyright of Depression & Anxiety

Copyright of Depression & Anxiety

Research Article

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY 27 : 476–484 (2010)

WAITLIST-CONTROLLED TRIAL OF COGNITIVE BEHAVIOR THERAPY FOR HOARDING DISORDER

Gail Steketee, Ph.D.,1� Randy O. Frost, Ph.D.,2 David F. Tolin, Ph.D.,3 Jessica Rasmussen, M.A.,4

and Timothy A. Brown, Psy.D.4

Objective: This study investigated a multicomponent cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) for hoarding based on a model proposed by Frost and colleagues and manualized in Steketee and Frost (2007). Method: Participants with clinically significant hoarding were recruited from the community and a university-based anxiety clinic. Of the 46 patients randomly assigned to CBT or waitlist (WL), 40 completed the 12-week assessment and 36 completed 26 sessions. Treatment included education and case formulation, motivational interviewing, skills training for organizing and problem solving, direct exposure to nonacquiring and discarding, and cognitive therapy. Measures included the Saving Inventory-Revised (self-report), Hoarding Rating Scale-Interview, and measures of clinical global improvement. Between group repeated measures analyses using general linear modeling examined the effect of CBT versus WL on hoarding symptoms and moodstate after 12 weeks. Within group analyses examined pre-post effects for all CBT participants combined after 26 sessions. Results: After 12 weeks, CBT participants benefited significantly more than WL patients on hoarding severity and mood with moderate effect sizes. After 26 sessions of CBT, participants showed significant reductions in hoarding symptoms with large effect sizes for most measures. At session 26, 71% of patients were considered improved on therapist clinical global improvement ratings and 81% of patients rated themselves improved; 41% of completers were clinically significantly improved. Conclusions: Multicomponent CBT was effective in treating hoarding. However, treatment refusal and compliance remain a concern, and further research with independent assessors is needed to establish treatment benefits and durability of gains. Depression and Anxiety 27:476–484, 2010. r 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Key words: compulsive hoarding; controlled trial; cognitive behavior therapy; adult intervention; collecting

Published online 24 March 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.

interscience.wiley.com).

Portions of this study were presented at the Association for Behavioral

and Cognitive Therapy, Philadelphia, PA, November 16–18, 2007.

Drs. Steketee, Frost, and Tolin receive royalties from Oxford University

Press (OUP) for publication of a self-help version of the therapy

methods (Tolin, Frost and Steketee, Buried in Treasures). Drs. Steketee and Frost also receive royalties from the therapist guide and client

workbook describing the methods used in this study (Steketee and

Frost, Compulsive Hoarding and Acquiring), and are under contract with Harcourt Press to publish Stuff: Compulsive Hoarding and the Meaning of Things for a public audience. Dr. Tolin received funding from the following sources: Schering-Plough, Indevus Pharmaceuticals, and Eli

Lilly.

Received for publication 7 November 2009; Revised 12 January 2010;

Accepted 13 January 2010

DOI 10.1002/da.20673

The authors disclose the following financial relationship within the past 3 years: Contract grant sponsor: National Institute of Mental Health; Contract grant number: R21 MH68539.

�Correspondence to: Gail Steketee, Boston University School of Social Work, 264 Bay State Rd., Boston, MA 02215-1409.

E-mail: steketee@bu.edu

1Boston University School of Social Work, Boston,

Massachusetts 2Department of Psychology, Smith College, Northampton,

Massachusetts 3Institute of Living, Anxiety Disorders Center and Yale

University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry,

New Haven, Connecticut 4Department of Psychology, Boston University, Boston,

Massachusetts

rr 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Features of hoarding include difficulty parting with personal possessions, even those of apparently useless or limited value, resulting in the accumulation of large amounts of clutter in the living areas of the home and often other personal and/or work environments.[1]

Excessive acquiring through buying or collecting free items is also evident in most cases.[2] These symptoms impair functioning and/or pose significant health and safety risks, as well as distress to those who hoard and/ or those living with or near them.[3–6]

Although hoarding has traditionally been considered a subtype of OCD, increasing evidence points to substantial differences in clinical and biological fea- tures.[7–10] Hoarding is also included in DSM-IV-TR as a symptom of obsessive–compulsive personality disorder, but does not appear strongly associated with other features of this condition (see review by Pertusa and colleagues, in press). Epidemiological findings indicate that clinically significant hoarding occurs in 2–5% of the population, making it a strikingly common problem.[11–13]

Retrospective treatment studies have recruited OCD patients with hoarding symptoms rather than people with hoarding as a primary problem. Most large-scale pharmacological studies have found that hoarding symptoms predict poor outcomes following SRI treat- ment,[14] and another study reported nonsignificant trends for hoarding to predict worse outcome (e.g.,[15]). A prospective study by Saxena et al.[16] reported no difference in response to paroxetine among hoarding and nonhoarding OCD patients; however, both groups showed only modest improvement (approximately 25%) on standard measures of OCD symptoms.

Findings from retrospective studies of behavioral treatments for OCD patients with hoarding symptoms have followed the trend of hoarding, predicting worse outcomes. This was evident for a computer-based behavioral therapy[17] and for therapist-administered exposure and response prevention (ERP), a cognitive- behavioral therapy (CBT) method developed for OCD that utilizes prolonged exposure to increasingly feared obsessive situations and gradual blocking of rituals associated with these obsessions, to achieve habituation of fear and reduction or elimination of rituals. Abramowitz and colleagues[18] reported that only 31% of hoarders exhibited a clinically significant response compared to 46–76% of patients with nonhoarding OCD, a relatively poor response for hoarding to this typically effective ERP method. Unfortunately, these studies suffer from sampling and measurement problems, with most recruiting hoarding patients from OCD clinics and utilizing the 2-item Symptom Checklist of the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale to identify hoarding. Retrospective studies that have combined serotonergic medication with behavior therapy for OCD also reported disappointing outcomes for hoarding compared to nonhoarding OCD patients.[19–21] Descriptive case

reports of hoarding patients receiving behavior therapy have reported generally negative treatment outcomes accompanied by poor insight, treatment refusal, and lack of cooperation.[22–27]

Over the past decade, a cognitive-behavioral model of compulsive hoarding has emerged[1,7,28] that posits that the excessive acquisition, difficulty discarding, and clutter that comprise hoarding stem from information processing deficits, problematic beliefs and behaviors, and emotional distress and avoidance. Research findings support many aspects of the model, including problems with focusing and sustaining attention,[29,30] categoriz- ing possessions,[31] and decision making [Maltby et al., submitted] as well as problematic beliefs about posses- sions.[32–34] The model proposes that strong negative emotional reactions to possessions (e.g., anxiety, grief, guilt) lead to avoidance of discarding and organizing, whereas strong positive emotions (pleasure, joy) re- inforce acquiring and saving possessions.[7]

In a recent open trial, Tolin and co-workers[35] tested a multicomponent CBT intervention for hoarding based on this model. Treatment included office and home visits with motivational interviewing to address low insight and limited motivation, decision-making training to improve cognitive processing, exposure to reduce negative emotions associated with discarding and resisting acquiring, and cognitive restructuring to alter beliefs. This treatment resulted in reductions of the major manifestations of hoarding (clutter, difficulty discarding, acquiring) in 14 adults, of whom 10 completed 26 sessions of treatment for more than 7–12 months. Significant decreases from pre to posttreatment were evident on standardized measures of hoarding symptoms, and at posttreatment, half the sample (n 5 5) were rated much or very much improved on clinical global improvement ratings.

Following upon this pilot work and minor modifica- tions to the treatment protocol, this study tested these CBT methods in a waitlist-controlled trial conducted at two sites. CBT was hypothesized to lead to greater improvement in hoarding symptoms than a wait period of 12 weeks for patients seeking treatment for hoarding. In addition, 26 sessions of this treatment was expected to produce significant and substantial benefits on hoarding symptoms.

METHODS

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Participants were recruited from anxiety clinics at Boston University and The Institute of Living from community service providers and from local and national media presentations. No formal advertising was employed and participants were not recruited through OCD specialty clinics. Inclusion criteria were adults Z18 whose most severe problem was hoarding; symptoms of clutter and difficulty discarding were at least moderately severe (Z4 on 0–8 ratings of the Hoarding Rating Scale (see below). Patients were excluded if they reported current psychotic symptoms, bipolar disorder, serious cognitive impairment that would interfere with

477Research Article: Waitlist-Controlled Trial of Cognitive Behavior Therapy

Depression and Anxiety

 

 

accurate reporting, substance use disorder within the past 6 months, were receiving concurrent psychotherapy, or had received psychiatric medications within the past month. We also excluded participants who hoarded animals, as treatment was not designed to address this problem. The need for monthly home visits required that we include participants who lived within 45 min of the clinic.

Figure 1 illustrates participant flow through the study. After a detailed description of the study to 46 patients who met criteria and provided written informed consent, 23 were randomly assigned to immediate CBT (26 sessions) and 23 to a 12-week waitlist (WL) before receiving 26 sessions of CBT. Two participants assigned to CBTrefused treatment and another two discontinued before session 10, leaving 19 completers in the immediate CBT group. Of those assigned to WL, two discontinued (animal hoarding was discovered at one home visit and one did not complete assessments), leaving 21 waitlist completers who were invited to continue into CBT. One refused CBT and two discontinued before week 10. Taken together, of 44 patients offered CBT immediately (23) or following WL (21), three declined and four discontinued (o10 sessions), representing 16% of the sample; the reasons given were scheduling conflicts, long travel times to therapy sessions, and feeling too overwhelmed to engage in therapy.

The sample included 75% women and was 87% Caucasian (minority representation included one Latino, five Black, one Asian); mean age was 54. Thirty-six percent had never married, 40% were married/living with partner, and 24% were divorced/separated or widowed. Most (66%) worked full- or part-time or were students and 32% were unemployed. In this generally well-educated sample, 40% reported having graduate education, 19% completed college, 26% had some college education, and 11% completed high school.

MEASURES

The Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV (ADIS-IV[36]) was used to determine diagnosis for anxiety, mood, somatoform, substance use disorders, and to screen for the presence of other conditions (e.g., psychosis). The ADIS-IV-L has produced good- to-excellent reliability estimates for the majority of anxiety and mood

disorders, including k5 .85 for principal OCD diagnoses.[37] Cross- site and rater reliability was accomplished via extensive ongoing training by ADIS developers and by a research team consensus regarding principal and secondary diagnoses for all participants.

The Saving Inventory-Revised (SI-R[38]) is a 23-item self-report questionnaire scored from 0 (no problem) to 4 (very severe, extreme); 3 factor analytically defined subscales are difficulty discarding, excessive clutter, and compulsive acquisition. The SI-R showed good internal consistency, test–retest reliability, known groups validity, and concurrent and divergent validity in clinical and nonclinical samples. Cronbach’s a for baseline SI-R in this sample was .88. Mean scores of 50 and above are typical of hoarding samples with clinically significant symptoms, whereas means for nonhoarding clinical samples and community samples score are in the 22–24 range.[38]

Hoarding Rating Scale-Interview (HRS-I; 41) is a brief 5-item semi- structured interview completed by the assessor to rate clutter,

difficulty discarding, acquisition, distress, and impairment on scales

from 0 to 8. All 5 items were summed to yield a total score ranging

from 0 to 40. The HRS-I has shown high internal consistency and

reliability across time, context, and raters, as well as known groups

and construct validity. Internal consistency for the sample was .79.

A total cutoff score of 14 and above distinguished hoarding from

OCD patients; mean scores of 20 and above are typical for clinical

hoarding samples, and mean scores in the 3–4 range were typical of

nonhoarding clinical and nonclinical samples.[39]

The NIMH Clinician Global Impression—Improvement ratings (CGI[40]) were made by therapists at the end of the waitlist period, session 12, and session 26 and ranged from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse). Patient CGI-I ratings were collected at CBT sessions 12 and 26 (self-ratings were not collected at postwaitlist).

The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II[41]), a 21-item self-report inventory of depression, shows good internal consistency and reasonable construct validity.[41] Cronbach’s a in this sample was .94.

The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI[42]) is a 21-item self-reported rating of anxiety with high internal consistency and satisfactory test–retest reliability. Internal consistency was .95 in this sample.

118 Screened

73 Met Criteria

23 Assigned to CBT 23 Assigned to WL

45 Did Not Meet Criteria

27 Declined to Participate

21 Completed 12 wks of WL

1 refused CBT, 2 discontinued

18 Completed 26 wks CBT

2 refused CBT, 2 discontinued

19 Completed 26 wks CBT

19 Completed 12 wks of CBT

2 discontinued

Figure 1. Flow chart for hoarding treatment study enrollment.

478 Steketee et al.

Depression and Anxiety

 

 

PROCEDURE

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Boston University, Smith College, and Hartford Hospital. After initial telephone screening, potential participants met with a trained assessor who provided detailed information about the study, obtained informed consent, reviewed inclusion and exclusion criteria and severity of hoarding, and other psychiatric conditions. Consenting participants with hoarding as their primary problem, who met other criteria, were randomly assigned to begin CBT immediately or after a 12-week wait period. Assessments were completed before treatment, after the wait period, after session 12, and after 26 sessions of CBT by patients and by clinicians who provided treatment and were not blind to the waitlist versus CBT condition.

TREATMENT

Therapists were advanced psychology graduate students and masters-level social workers who received extensive training in CBT for hoarding,[28] watched motivational interviewing training videotapes,[43] received weekly supervision from RF or GS who listened to audio recordings sessions and provided ongoing feedback. Formal fidelity ratings were not computed, but two pairs of graduate psychology students, who assisted in developing adherence ratings, reported good adherence for six patients treated by three different therapists. Treatment included 26 individual sessions scheduled approximately weekly in the office (1 hr each), with every fourth session (2 hr) conducted in the home or at a local acquiring location. The average therapy duration was 44.8 weeks (range 28–77) due mainly to patient scheduling and motivational problems.

Treatment began with assessment and case formulation, develop- ing an idiographic CBT model, and treatment planning. Motivational interviewing strategies were applied whenever therapists detected ambivalence (e.g., homework compliance, attendance problems). Therapists applied interventions skills training for organizing, decision making, and problem solving; exposure to nonacquiring and discarding; and cognitive therapy for problematic hoarding- relevant beliefs. Techniques were applied flexibly based on the initial treatment plan and progress in various areas. Homework tasks decided at each session required patients to practice therapy methods several times per week. The last two sessions on relapse prevention addressed future progress and managing stressors without reverting to hoarding behaviors. In addition, eight participants (four at each site) with very severe clutter or physical limitations received one or two ‘‘marathon’’ sessions of 3–6 hr each in which the therapist and up to four other research team members traveled to the patient’s home to help with sorting, organizing, and discarding. All such intensive sessions occurred late in therapy after patients had learned skills and could provide direction to team members on what to discard. All decisions were made according to the patients’ rules.

This hoarding-focused CBT intervention differs from standard ERP for OCD, by including specialized aspects of the hoarding problem in the patient case formulation (e.g., familial and biological vulnerability factors, cognitive processing problems, positive and negative emotions that reinforce saving and acquiring behaviors), as well as nonstandard treatment components, such as motivational interviewing and cognitive skills training in decision making and problem solving. Other therapy elements—gradual exposure to discarding and nonacquiring situations (exposure), encouraging voluntary restriction of acquiring (response prevention), and Beckian cognitive therapy methods—are similar to those used in ERP and more recent CBT for OCD.

DATA ANALYSES

Data were analyzed using SPSS v. 15 with SPSS Missing Value Analysis v. 7.5 (SPSS, 1997). Whenever possible, missing values were

first replaced with actual data collected from an assessment close in time to the missing value. Accordingly, scores from the first home visit replaced missing baseline data for 3 participants (4 measures), session 16 data were substituted for missing session 12 data for 3 participants (5 measures), and session 8 data substituted for session 12 for 1 participant (1 measure). Remaining missing values were imputed using the expectation-maximization method, which uses a conditional expectation of the missing data given the observed values and current estimates of the parameters, then computes maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters. The extent and effect of missing data are noted below where appropriate. In reporting treatment outcomes, we have included effect sizes calculated via partial Z2 (Z2P) as well as the conversion to Cohen’s d as per Cohen.[43]

Chi square and t-test (two-tailed) analyses first examined compar- ability of groups on baseline demographic and mood state measures for WL and CBT participants and for CBT completers versus discontinuers. Repeated measures general linear modeling (GLM) analyses tested the hypothesis that 12 sessions of CBT would outperform waitlist using a 2 (site: Boston, Hartford)� 2 (group: WL, CBT)� 2 (time: baseline, 12 weeks) repeated measures mixed factor GLM. Similar 2 (site)� 3 (time: pre, mid, post) repeated measures mixed GLM analyses tested the hypothesis that CBT participants would show significant improvement in hoarding symptoms from pretreatment to mid (12 sessions) and posttreatment (26 sessions) for the 41 patients who began CBT. Outcome analyses were performed on both the intention-to-treat and completer samples, but because findings were very similar, only the former are reported here.

RESULTS BASELINE COMPARISONS

Baseline comparisons of CBT versus WL partici- pants (Table 1) indicated no significant differences for gender, age, ethnicity/race, marital status, employment, anxiety (BAI), or depression (BDI, all Ps4.05). Comparisons of treatment completers (n 5 36) to noncompleters (n 5 11) at baseline on demographic variables and hoarding severity also indicated no significant differences (all Ps4.05) in age, gender, race, marital status, or employment, or mood state (BDI, BAI).

CBT VERSUS WL AT WEEK 12

Intent-to-treat analyses included 46 patients (23 WL and 23 CBT).1 Mean scores for outcome variables are given in Table 2. SI-R subscale scores (Clutter, Difficulty Discarding, Acquisition)2 were examined first. As ex- pected, a significant main effect of time (F1,44 5 15.603, P 5.001, Z2P 5 0.271 [Cohen’s d 5 1.219]) was

1Examination of missing data on the main outcome variables at 12 weeks showed that 7 (15.2%) participants were missing SI-R and HRS-I data, and 11 (23.9%) were missing CGI data. Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test was not significant [w2(5) 5 2.607, P 5.760], suggesting randomness in the missing data. 2In these analyses, SI-R subscale scores were summed and divided by the number of items per scale to yield average subscale scores. However, Table 2 provides the summed score for each subscale to facilitate comparison with earlier published findings.

479Research Article: Waitlist-Controlled Trial of Cognitive Behavior Therapy

Depression and Anxiety

 

 

modified by a significant group� time interaction (F1,44 5 10.749, P 5.002, Z2P 5 0.204 [Cohen’s d 5 1.012]). Because none of the interaction effects invol- ving time and subscale were significant (all Ps4.05), follow-up tests were conducted using the SI-R total score. Again, a significant main effect of time emerged (F1,44 5 15.007, P 5.001, Z2P 5 0.263 [Cohen’s d 5 1.195]) as well as the predicted group� time interaction (F1,44 5 10.719, P 5.002, Z2P 5 0.203 [Cohen’s d 5 1.009]). No site by time interactions were significant (Ps4.05). As Table 2 indicates, the WL group showed minimal reduction in SI-R scores, t(22) 5 0.50, P4.05, whereas the CBT group showed a nearly 10-point (15%) average reduction in total SI-R scores, t(22) 5 4.54, Po.001.

Results from analyses of HRS-I scores showed a significant main effect of time (F1,42 5 60.037, Po.001, Z2P 5 0.588 [Cohen’s d 5 2.389]), modified by a sig- nificant group� time interaction (F1,42 5 8.446, P 5.006, Z2P 5 0.167 [Cohen’s d 5 0.896]). Although both the CBT and WL groups improved (ts[21] 5 6.0 and 4.5, respectively, Pso.05), CBT led to more improvement than did WL (Table 2). However, site interactions were significant for this variable, including time� site (F1,42 5 5.829, P 5.020, Z2P 5 0.122 [Cohen’s d 5 0.764]) and time� site� group (F1,42 5 5.612, P 5.023, Z2P 5 0.118 [Cohen’s d 5 0.732]). Post hoc analyses indicated that Boston

TABLE 2. Means (standard deviations) and effect sizes from general linear modeling (GLM) analyses comparing treated versus waitlisted hoarding participants after 12 weeks

Measure N Baseline SD Wk 12 SD Partial eta squared Cohen’s d conversion

SI-R Total CBT 23 63.42 14.95 53.73 18.47 .223 1.071 WL 23 62.39 10.60 61.21 13.05

Clutter CBT 23 27.37 7.09 24.16 9.42 .135 0.790 WL 23 27.17 4.07 27.17 4.89

Discarding CBT 23 20.03 4.40 16.93 5.57 .090 0.629 WL 23 20.22 3.38 19.67 4.03

Acquiring CBT 23 16.10 6.45 12.67 6.96 .120 0.739 WL 23 15.55 6.43 14.37 6.73

HRS CBT 23 29.88 4.47 21.68 6.97 .111 0.707 WL 23 29.48 5.48 25.83 4.40

BDI-II CBT 14 11.25 10.53 11.59 11.69 .017 0.263 WL 18 19.18 10.51 17.84 10.71

BAI CBT 14 10.49 11.89 9.66 7.51 .001 0.063 WL 20 9.38 6.72 9.00 7.92

CGI therapist CBT 23 – – 2.72 0.74 .403 1.643 WL 23 – – 3.84 0.62

CGI, Clinical Global Improvement; HRS, Hoarding Rating Scale; SI-R, Saving Inventory Revised.

TABLE 1. Demographic information and baseline symptom severity (frequency/mean, P value) for hoarding participants (intention-to-treat) assigned to waitlist (WL) versus cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) conditions

WL participants CBT participants

Variable N 5 23 N 5 23 P value

Age 53.3 (8.0) 54.5 (8.2) .60 % female 69.6 82.6 .30 % Caucasian 91.3 82.6 .38 % married or

cohabiting 69.6 47.8 .13

% employeda 56.5 73.9 .20 % with BA or

more 54.5 65.2 .47

% with MDD 47.8 39.1 .55 % with GAD 34.8 34.8 1.0 % with social

phobia 21.7 26.1 .73

SI-R total 62.4 (10.6) 63.5 (15.6) .78 HRS 29.5 (5.5) 29.9 (4.5) .79 BDI 19.7 (11.6) 13.5 (11.4) .08 BAI 11.0 (10.8) 11.3 (12.1) .93

aEmployed full-time or part-time or student. BA, Bachelors of Arts degree; BAI, Beck Anxiety Inventory; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; GAD, generalized anxiety disorder; HRS, Hoarding Rating Scale; MDD, major depressive disorder; SI-R, Saving Inventory-Revised.

480 Steketee et al.

Depression and Anxiety

 

 

patients treated with CBT showed substantial reduc- tion in hoarding symptoms, whereas Hartford CBT patients and WL participants from both sites improved only modestly.

Analyses of session 12 outcomes for depressed (BDI-II) and anxious (BAI) mood indicated no significant effect of time or group� time interaction (all Ps4.479). As evident in Table 2, the samples for these analyses were small (Ns 5 14 for CBT and 18–20 for WL), standard deviations were large, and severity levels were low-to-moderate. Univariate ANOVAs used to examine therapist CGI-I ratings at session 12 showed a main effect of group (F1,42 5 28.341, P 5.001, Z2P 5 .403) in which CBT participants were rated as showing more average improvement than WL participants (Table 2). No site effect or site� group interaction emerged (Ps4.05). When therapist CGI-I scores at 12 weeks were recoded into ‘‘very much’’ or ‘‘much improved’’ (scores of 1 or 2) versus ‘‘not improved’’ (score of 3–7),3 none (0%) of the WL patients and 10 (43.5%) of the CBT patients were rated improved, a significant difference according to Fisher’s Exact Test (P 5.001).

PRE-MID-POST-CHANGES IN THE COMBINED CBT SAMPLE

Intent-to-treat analyses examined all participants assigned to immediate and delayed CBT (N 5 41). Mean scores for pretest, session 12, session 26, and effect sizes (partial Z2 (Z2P) from GLM analyses are reported in Table 3. Missing data were addressed, as described earlier.4 SI-R scores were analyzed using a 3

(time: pretreatment, session 12, session 26)� 3 (scale: Clutter, Difficulty Discarding, Acquisition)� 2 (site: Bos- ton, Hartford) repeated measures GLM with time and scale as repeated measures. Results showed a significant main effects of time (F2,38 5 33.265, Po.001, Z2P 5 0.460) and of subscale (F2,78 5 86.506, Po.001, Z2P 5 0.689). The time by site interactions were not significant (time� site, F2,38 5 1.682, P 5.20; time� site� subscale F4,36 5 1.940, P 5.125), indicating that outcomes were comparable across the two sites. The time by subscale interaction was significant, F4,36 5 3.895, Po.01; therefore, we followed up with analyses for SI-R subscales as well as the total score. Significant time effects emerged for all scales: total score F2,80 5 32.648, Po.001, clutter F2,80 5 27.666, Po.001, difficulty discarding F2,80 5 23.668, Po.001, acquiring F2,80 5 14.894, Po.001; all Z2PsZ.271 (Table 3). Pairwise comparisons indicated significant declines in SI-R total scores from pretreatment to session 12, and again from session 12 to session 26 (Pso.05).

HRS-I scores were analyzed using a repeated measures GLM examining site� time (pretreatment, session 12, session 26). Results showed a significant main effect of time (F2,78 5 51.342, Po.001, Z2P 5 0.568 [Cohen’s d 5 2.293]) and no time� site interaction (P4.08), indicating comparable effects across sites. Follow-up pairwise comparisons showed that HRS-I scores decreased significantly from pretreatment to session 12, and again from session 12 to session 26 (Pso.05). As for session 12, analyses of outcomes on the BDI-II and BAI showed no significant changes over time (all Ps4.20); again sample sizes were smaller (ns 5 25–26) than for other analyses, and mean scores showed moderate severity and high variability.

Table 3 contains mean scores and effect sizes for therapist and self-reported CGI-I ratings for 41

TABLE 3. Means and standard deviations (SD) at pretreatment, 12 and 26 sessions and effect sizes (partial g2) for time for 41 hoarding participants who received cognitive behavior therapy

Measure Pretest SD Session 12 SD Session 26 SD Z2P Cohen’s d conversion

SI-R Total 61.69 15.49 54.17 15.98 44.77 18.59 .449 1.805 Clutter 26.94 6.80 24.63 7.91 19.61 8.47 .409 1.664 Discarding 19.78 4.77 16.63 5.34 14.43 6.20 .372 1.539 Acquiring 14.98 6.74 12.91 6.70 10.73 6.30 .271 1.219 HRS 28.18 4.95 22.23 6.13 17.18 8.09 .568 2.293 BDI-II 12.57 9.56 14.47 11.50 11.43 8.63 .065 0.527 BAI 9.32 10.05 9.28 7.86 7.98 9.71 .030 0.352 CGI therapist – – 2.64 0.69 2.06 0.73 .381 1.569 CGI patient – – 2.44 0.66 2.06 0.78 .286 1.266

N 5 41 includes 21 patients who received immediate CBT and 20 who began CBT after waitlist. CGI, Clinical Global Improvement; HRS, Hoarding Rating Scale; SI-R, Saving Inventory Revised.

3When missing CGI-I values were imputed, scores less than or equal to 2.500 were considered improved, and scores of 2.501 or greater were considered not improved. 4In addition to the specific data substitutions noted for earlier analyses, session 16 measures were substituted for missing data at posttreatment for one participant who stopped CBTafter 19 sessions due to lack of motivation and failure to complete therapy activities. Further, 5 (12.2%) patients were missing SI-R data at 12 weeks and 4 (9.8%) at 26 weeks; 5 (12.2%) were missing HRS-I data at 12 weeks

( Footnote continued ) and 4 (9.8%) at 26 weeks; 7 (17.1%) were missing therapist-rated CGI ratings at 12 weeks and 4 (9.8%) at 26 weeks; 8 (19.5%) were missing self-rated CGI at 12 weeks and 5 (12.2%) at 26 weeks. Little’s MCAR test was not significant [w2 (83) 5 0.000, P 5 1.000], suggest- ing randomness in the missing data.

481Research Article: Waitlist-Controlled Trial of Cognitive Behavior Therapy

Depression and Anxiety

 

 

patients who entered CBT. GLM analyses examined time (session 12, session 26) as a repeated measure and site effects. Therapist ratings showed a main effect of time (F1,39 5 24.003, Po.001) and no site interaction (P4.20). Self-rated CGI also showed a main effect of time (F1,39 5 15.659, Po.001), again with no site effect (P4.47). Effect sizes (partial Z2) were large for time effects on both measures (Table 3). Figure 2 provides the number of patients who received specific scores on these measures. When participants were classified as ‘‘improved’’ (score of 1 ‘‘very much’’ or 2 ‘‘much improved’’) versus ‘‘not improved’’ (score of 3–7) at 12 sessions, 18 (43.9%) received therapist ratings of improved and 25 (61.0%) rated themselves as improved. After session 26, 29 (70.7%) received therapist ratings of improved, and 33 (80.5%) rated themselves as improved. Fifteen of the 37 clients (41%) who completed treatment were classified as clinically significantly improved on both the SIR and HRS, using Jacobson and Truax[44] criteria.

DISCUSSION Findings from this waitlist-controlled trial indicated

that after 12 sessions, a multicomponent CBT inter- vention based on a model of hoarding psychopathology led to significantly more improvement in hoarding symptoms than did a comparable waiting period. Large between-group differences in effect sizes (partial Z2) were observed, particularly for self- reported overall hoarding (SI-R total) and therapist- rated clinical global improvement. Patients reported improvement in specific symptoms of clutter, difficulty discarding and acquiring, consistent with earlier treat- ment studies.[37,45] Given the consistency with which reports in the literature describe hoarding patients as difficult to treat, the extent of improvement after a relatively limited amount of treatment (12 sessions) seems promising.

The baseline to midtreatment and posttreatment comparisons for the 41 patients who began CBT indicated significant improvement from baseline on all measures of hoarding symptoms. Effect sizes were large and means suggest substantial improvement on average across all patients. As expected, gains were evident for

each of the three hoarding symptoms, with acquiring showing somewhat more modest average improve- ment. Measures of depressed and anxious mood showed little reduction during treatment. Although treatment included cognitive therapy methods likely to improve depression and exposures designed to habi- tuate anxiety associated with hoarding, the greater than usual missing data and moderate baseline scores as well as high variability (some standard deviations were greater than the means) likely played a role in these findings.

According to therapist ratings, clinical global im- provement occurred in about 70% of patients who were rated improved compared to 50% in the Tolin et al.[35] pilot trial. Despite these relatively high improvement rates, only 24% (10/41) were rated in the highest category of ‘‘very much improved,’’ indicating that the large majority continued to have clinically significant difficulty. In addition, only 41% met criteria for clinically significant change. Although this is considerably higher than earlier findings for hoarding,[18] it is still below what has been found for the treatment of OCD.[18] In our experience, even patients who benefit greatly from 26 sessions of this specialized CBT require further aid to fully clear their homes and maintain clutter-free living spaces.

It is noteworthy that of 73 patients with hoarding problems who qualified initially for the study, 27 (37%) declined to participate and another 5 (total of 44%) discontinued before entering CBT. Reasons for this high refusal rate are unclear and require further study. Although some participants gave reasons, such as distance to the clinic, we suspect many treatment seekers with hoarding were still ambivalent about resolving their problem, consistent with the limited insight and low motivation reported by many other investigators.[17,46] In contrast, the dropout rate for those who began CBT (4 of 41, 10%) for this study was quite modest and substantially better than the 29% discontinuation rate in our small pilot trial.[35] This came at some cost, however, as therapists permitted patients to continue in treatment despite repeated late arrivals and missed appointments that indicated am- bivalence. In fact, the 26-session therapy required an average of 49 weeks to complete despite the intended weekly sessions. Therapists also reported that hoarding patients often had difficulty completing homework assignments and required frequent motivational en- hancement strategies during sessions, especially early in treatment.

This initial test of CBT for hoarding has several limitations. The sample included mainly women, whereas at least two epidemiological studies indicate that hoarding may be more common among men.[11,13]

Furthermore, it is not clear that findings for this largely white, highly educated adult sample will generalize to other more diverse populations. Other concerns include the lack of an independent assessor blind to treatment condition, the lack of reliability data for the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CBT wk 12

CBT wk 26

CBT wk 12

CBT wk 26

Therapist Patient

N um

be r

of c

lie nt

s

very much improved

much improved

minimally improved

no change/worse

Figure 2. Therapist and patient ratings of Clinical Global Improvement (CGI) after 12 and 26 sessions of cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT).

482 Steketee et al.

Depression and Anxiety

 

 

ADIS and HRS clinician assessments, and the amount of missing data at week 12, especially for CBT participants, which may have affected the findings despite findings of randomness of the missing data. Furthermore, we did find unexpected site differences for the HRS interview measure which might have been due to the higher dropout rate for the Hartford versus Boston site (3 versus 0) in the WL condition. However, this was the only site difference obtained. In addition, because treatment fidelity ratings were completed only for a small portion of patients (n 5 6) whose sessions were also used to help develop and test adherence rating forms, we cannot state with certainty that all therapists adhered to the manual. However, all were supervised closely by the senior authors (GS, RF) who listened to clinic session audiotapes and provided feedback on all patients’ treatment. In addition, RF listened to taped sessions from both Boston and Hartford therapists to verify that treatment was being delivered comparably across sites.

Overall, the CBT methods employed in this study appear to benefit patients with hoarding symptoms and to improve upon standard ERP applied in earlier studies. However, in the absence of a control group that received ERP, we cannot draw this conclusion. Thus, it remains important to deter- mine whether the multicomponent CBT methods employed here are superior to ERP for patients with primary hoarding and whether these effects are lasting. Additionally, it is not clear what the various components of this CBT treatment contribute to the overall benefits. Finally, potential benefits from adding medications to these CBT methods remain to be studied.

Acknowledgments. This project was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant R21 MH68539 awarded to Dr. Steketee.

Dr. Tolin received funding from the following sources: Schering-Plough, Indevus Pharmaceuticals, and Eli Lilly.

This study was funded by NIMH grant R21 MH068539 to the first author.

The authors thank study coordinators Robert Brady, Patrick Worhunsky, and Cristina Sorrentino; research assistants/therapists Ancy Cherian and Amanda Gibson from the Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders at Boston University; research assistants Stefanie Renaud and Laura Fabricant from Smith College; and Johanna Crocetto and Robert Brady from The Institute of Living. Additional study therapists from Boston University included Shawnee Basden, Terry Lewis, and Dr. Christiana Bratiotis. Study therapists from The Institute of Living included Dr. Scott Hannan, Dr. Nicholas Maltby, Dr. Suzanne Meunier, David Klemanski, Krista Gray, Matthew Monteiro, and Danielle Koby. Data were collected at Boston University School of Social Work and Department of Psychology,

Boston, MA and at Hartford Hospital Institute of Living, Hartford, CT.

REFERENCES 1. Frost RO, Hartl TL. A cognitive-behavioral model of compul-

sive hoarding. Behav Res Ther 1996;34:341–350. 2. Frost RO, Tolin DF, Steketee G, Fitch KE, Selbo-Bruns A.

Excessive acquisition in hoarding. J Anxiety Disord 2009;23: 632–639.

3. Steketee G, Frost RO, Kim HJ. Hoarding by elderly people. Health Soc Work 2001;26:176–184.

4. Frost RO, Steketee G, Williams LF, Warren R. Mood, personality disorder symptoms and disability in obsessive compulsive hoarders: A comparison with clinical and nonclinical controls. Behav Res Ther 2000;38:1071–1081.

5. Tolin DF, Frost RO, Steketee G, Gray KD, Fitch KE. The economic and social burden of compulsive hoarding. Psychiatry Res 2008;160:200–211.

6. Tolin DF, Frost RO, Steketee G, Fitch KE. Family burden of compulsive hoarding: results of an internet survey. Behav Res Ther 2008;46:334–344.

7. Steketee G, Frost RO. Compulsive hoarding: Current status of the research. Clin Psychol Rev 2003;23:905–927.

8. Tolin DF, Kiehl KA, Worhunsky P, Book GA, Maltby N. An exploratory study of the neural mechanisms of decision making in compulsive hoarding. Psychol Med 2009;39:325–336.

9. Mataix-Cols D, Wooderson S, Lawrence N, Brammer MJ, Speckens A, Phillips ML. Distinct neural correlates of washing, checking, and hoarding symptom dimensions in obsessive– compulsive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004;61:564–576.

10. Saxena S, Brody AL, Maidment KM, et al. Cerebral glucose metabolism in obsessive–compulsive hoarding. Am J Psychiatry 2004;161:1038–1048.

11. Iervolino AC, Perroud N, Fullana MA, et al. Prevalence and heritability of compulsive hoarding: A twin study. Am J Psychiatry 2010.

12. Mueller A, Mitchell JE, Crosby RD, Glaesmer H, de Zwaan M. The prevalence of compulsive hoarding and its association with compulsive buying in a German population-based sample. Behav Res Ther 2009;47:705–709.

13. Samuels JF, Bienvenu OJ, Grados MA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of hoarding behavior in a community-based sample. Behav Res Ther 2008;46:836–844.

14. Mataix-Cols D, Rauch SL, Manzo PA, Jenike MA, Baer L. Use of factor-analyzed symptom dimensions to predict outcome with serotonin reuptake inhibitors and placebo in the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 1999;156: 1409–1416.

15. Erzegovesi S, Cavallini MC, Cavedini P, Diaferia G, Locatelli M, Bellodi L. Clinical predictors of drug response in obsessive– compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2001;21:488–492.

16. Saxena S, Brody AL, Maidment KM, Baxter Jr LR. Paroxetine treatment of compulsive hoarding. J Psychiatr Res 2007;41: 481–487.

17. Mataix-Cols D, Marks IM, Greist JH, Kobak KA, Baer L. Obsessive–compulsive symptom dimensions as predictors of compliance with and response to behaviour therapy: results from a controlled trial. Psychother Psychosom 2002;71:255–262.

18. Abramowitz JS, Franklin ME, Schwartz SA, Furr JM. Symptom presentation and outcome of cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive–compulsive disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 2003;71: 1049–1057.

483Research Article: Waitlist-Controlled Trial of Cognitive Behavior Therapy

Depression and Anxiety

 

 

19. Black DW, Monahan P, Gable J, Blum N, Clancy G, Baker P. Hoarding and treatment response in 38 nondepressed subjects with obsessive–compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1998;59:420–425.

20. Saxena S, Maidment KM, Vapnik T, et al. Obsessive–compulsive hoarding: Symptom severity and response to multimodal treatment. J Clin Psychiatry 2002;63:21–27.

21. Winsberg ME, Cassic KS, Koran LM. Hoarding in obsessive– compulsive disorder: a report of 20 cases. J Clin Psychiatry 1999;60:591–597.

22. Greenberg D. Compulsive hoarding. Am J Psychother 1987; 41:409–416.

23. Greenberg D, Witztum E, Levy A. Hoarding as a psychiatric symptom. J Clin Psychiatry 1990;51:417–421.

24. Christensen DD, Greist JH. The challenge of obsessive–com- pulsive disorder hoarding. Prim Psychiatry 2001;8:79–86.

25. Damecour CL, Charron M. Hoarding: a symptom, not a syndrome. J Clin Psychiatry 1998;59:267–272.

26. Fitzgerald PB. The ‘‘bowerbird symptom’’: a case of severe hoarding of possessions. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1997;31:597–600.

27. Shafran R, Tallis F. Obsessive–compulsive hoarding: a cognitive- behavioral approach. Behav Cogn Psychother 1996;24:209–221.

28. Steketee G, Frost RO. Compulsive Hoarding and Acquiring: Therapist Guide. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.

29. Hartl TL, Duffany SR, Allen GJ, Steketee G, Frost RO. Relation- ships among compulsive hoarding, trauma, and attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. Behav Res Ther 2005;43:269–276.

30. Grisham JR, Brown TA, Savage CR, Steketee G, Barlow DH. Neuropsychological impairment associated with compulsive hoarding. Behav Res Ther 2007;45:1471–1483.

31. Wincze JP, Steketee G, Frost RO. Categorization in compulsive hoarding. Behav Res Ther 2006;45:63–72.

32. Hartl TL, Frost RO, Allen GJ, et al. Actual and perceived memory deficits in individuals with compulsive hoarding. Depress Anxiety 2004;20:59–69.

33. Frost RO, Hartl T, Christian R, Williams N. The value of possessions in compulsive hoarding: Patterns of use and attachment. Behav Res Ther 1995;33:897–902.

34. Steketee G, Frost RO, Kyrios M. Beliefs about possessions among compulsive hoarders. Cogn Ther Res 2003;27:467–479.

35. Tolin DF, Frost RO, Steketee G. An open trial of cognitive- behavioral therapy for compulsive hoarding. Behav Res Ther 2007;45:1461–1470.

36. Brown TA, DiNardo PA, Barlow DH. Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1994.

37. Brown TA, Di Nardo PA, Lehman CL, Campbell LA. Reliability of DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders: Implications for the classification of emotional disorders. J Abnorm Psychol 2001; 110:49–58.

38. Frost RO, Steketee G, Grisham J. Measurement of compulsive hoarding: Saving Inventory-Revised. Behav Res Ther 2004;42: 1163–1182.

39. Tolin DF, Frost RO, Steketee G. A brief interview for assessing compulsive hoarding: The Hoarding Rating Scale-Interview. Psychiatry Res 2010.

40. Guy W. Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1976.

41. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory. 2nd ed. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation, Harcourt, Brace; 1996.

42. Beck AT, Steer RA, Garbin MG. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev 1988;8:77–100.

43. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.

44. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991;59:12–19.

45. Steketee G, Frost RO, Wincze J, Greene K, Douglass H. Group and individual treatment of compulsive hoarding: A pilot study. Behav Cogn Psychother 2000;28:259–268.

46. Tolin DF, Fitch KE, Frost RO, Steketee G. Family informants’ perceptions of insight in compulsive hoarding. Cogn Ther Res 2010;34:69–81.

484 Steketee et al.

Depression and Anxiety

 

 

Copyright of Depression & Anxiety (1091-4269) is the property of John Wiley & Sons Inc. and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW