Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42500867

Feasibility and effectiveness of the Bergen 4-Day Treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder in Australia: A pilot comparison with 3-week inpatient obsessive-compulsive disorder treatment.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Obsessive-compulsive disorder is a debilitating and chronic condition that, when untreated or unresponsive to treatment, imposes a significant health and economic burden on individuals and families. This prospective non-randomised inpatient study compared the acceptability and clinical outcomes of the Bergen 4-Day Treatment programme with those of a standard 3-week specialised treatment programme for obsessive-compulsive disorder in Australia. METHOD: Twenty-five participants diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder were non-randomly assigned to Bergen 4-Day Treatment (n = 12) or a 3-week standard (n = 13) inpatient programme. Independent assessments were completed at pre-treatment, 10 days post treatment and at 3-month follow-up. The Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale was rated to assess obsessive-compulsive disorder severity, while secondary measures of depression, anxiety, obsessive beliefs and wellbeing were self-rated by participants. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable, with obsessive-compulsive disorder symptom severity within the moderate to severe range. After treatment, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms as well as secondary depression and anxiety symptoms were reduced in both treatment groups. Participants receiving Bergen 4-Day Treatment had significantly lower Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores at 10 days (M = 13.46) and 3 months (M = 11.84), compared to standard treatment (M = 19.04 and M = 19.15, respectively). Response (91.9%) and remission (45.8%) rates for the Bergen 4-Day Treatment group were significantly higher at both post-treatment timepoints, compared to the standard treatment group. No dropouts occurred in the Bergen 4-Day Treatment group, and participant satisfaction was high. CONCLUSION: The findings of this pilot open-label study suggest that Bergen 4-Day Treatment shows promise as an acceptable, efficient and effective treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder, warranting further investigation as a scalable alternative for improving access to specialised obsessive-compulsive disorder treatment in Australia.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Nathan L Dowling, Scott Blair-West, Keong Yap, Priscilla Yardley, Lachlan Cribb, Sophie Clement, Kerry Webster, Sebastian Wise, Thröstur Björgvinsson, Bjarne Hansen, Chee H Ng. 2026-07-25. Feasibility and effectiveness of the Bergen 4-Day Treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder in Australia: A pilot comparison with 3-week inpatient obsessive-compulsive disorder treatment.. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674261462748

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Memantine Augmentation for Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms in Bipolar Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive symptoms are frequently observed in patients with bipolar disorder and present a significant therapeutic challenge. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of memantine as an adjunctive therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in patients with bipolar disorder. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 46 patients with bipolar disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, stabilized on quetiapine and lithium, were randomly assigned to receive either memantine (n = 23) or placebo (n = 23) for 6 weeks. RESULTS: The memantine group showed a significant reduction in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale scores compared with the placebo group (Cohen d = 1.57 vs 0.42, P < 0.001). Nausea was the most common side effect, but overall adverse effects were minimal. CONCLUSION: Memantine appears to be a safe and effective adjunctive treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder in patients with bipolar disorder, warranting further investigation.

Humans

Functional neuroimaging subtypes of obsessive-compulsive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) exhibits substantial clinical heterogeneity that may reflect underlying neurobiological diversity. Neuroimaging-based subtyping may advance precision psychiatry by identifying biologically distinct subgroups with differential treatment responses. This study systematically synthesized evidence from functional neuroimaging subtyping studies in OCD to identify reproducible neurobiological subtypes, characterize their clinical profiles, and establish a consensus-based classification framework. We reviewed 40 original studies employing machine learning, clustering, normative modeling, or classification approaches, encompassing approximately 8,150 patients. Consensus clustering identified three reproducible neurobiological subtypes. The Limbic-Hyperactive subtype, comprising approximately 40% of patients, exhibited amygdala and insula hyperconnectivity, elevated anxiety levels, predominant contamination and washing symptoms, and favorable response to cognitive-behavioral therapy. The Fronto-Striatal-Hypoconnected subtype, comprising approximately 35% of patients, demonstrated reduced orbitofrontal-striatal connectivity, cognitive inflexibility, predominant checking and ordering symptoms, and a favorable response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The Global-Disrupted subtype, comprising approximately 25% of patients, exhibited widespread connectivity disruption, greater symptom severity, and poor treatment response. Support vector machine classification achieved 81.5% accuracy for subtype assignment, though classification of OCD versus healthy controls showed limited generalizability in multisite settings (AUC 0.567-0.673). These findings support a neuroimaging-based framework for personalized treatment selection but require prospective validation.

Humans

The efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation interventions in obsessive-compulsive disorder management: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been widely used as an alternative treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). However, the most effective NIBS parameters are unclear. To compare the efficacy of NIBS in OCD. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) to combine direct and indirect comparisons of NIBS.Systematic searches were conducted in Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to June 20, 2025. Forty-two randomized sham-controlled trials (n = 1456) were included. All statistical analyses were conducted with R statistical software. Bayesian NMAs mainly using the BUGSnet package and gemtc package. Five NIBS protocols produced statistically significant reductions in Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores compared with sham stimulation: high-frequency rTMS over the FzFCz (Hf-rTMS-FzFCz; MD -11.77, 95% CrI -20.62 to -3.09), low-frequency rTMS over F3F4 (Lf-rTMS-F3F4; MD -9.93, 95% CrI -18.07 to -1.65), low-frequency rTMS over FCz (Lf-rTMS-FCz; MD -3.25, 95% CrI -6.06 to -0.40), high-frequency deep TMS over FzFC (Hf-dTMS-FzFC; MD -6.48, 95% CrI -12.32 to -0.50), and 2 mA anodal tDCS over F3 with cathodal over Fp2 (MD -9.34, 95% CrI -16.01 to -3.03).For secondary outcomes, high-frequency deep rTMS over FzFCz produced the largest reduction both in depressive symptoms (SMD -1.24, 95% CrI -1.92 to -0.55) and anxiety scores (SMD -1.88, 95% CrI -2.62 to -1.11), but had no effect on Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scores.Specific NIBS protocols are safe and effective adjunctive treatments for OCD, with promising yet inconclusive improvements in comorbid depressive symptoms. Further high-quality, head-to-head trials are needed.

Humans