ArticleThe British journal of clinical psychology2025
'Not my mess'?: How do supporters of individuals with hoarding difficulties rate the quality of the support they offer?
Article in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 'Not my mess'?: How do supporters of individuals with hoarding difficulties rate the quality of the support they offer?The British journal of clinical psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHoarding difficulties (HD) affect many people and cause upset and danger for the person, as well as friends and family. Previous research found that people with HD feel less adequately socially supported compared with individuals with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). This study used the perspective of those offering support to infer whether people with HD view their support differently, or if there is a gap in support quality compared with those with OCD.
designThe design was cross-sectional, comparing those supporting OCD with those supporting HD.
methodsAn online questionnaire was completed by 116 people offering support (POS) to people with these conditions. Support quality was measured using an adapted, proxy version of the Revised Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire. The research hypothesized that POS(HD) would not differ on support ratings compared with POS(OCD); or that POS(HD) would report comparatively lower ratings across support components. Secondary analysis investigated group differences in stigmatized attitudes and associative stigma; internalized stigma by virtue of having a connection to a stigmatized individual.
resultsPOS(HD) rated their wish to support and the perceived success as significantly lower. Public stigma was rated more highly by POS(HD) relative to POS(OCD) and associative stigma felt more acutely by POS(HD).
conclusionsMotivation to support was significantly lower in the HD group with associative stigma a significant predictive factor. Further research involving dyads is needed to investigate what is causing this shortfall in support. Clinical research for HD interventions should also examine how involving POS could enhance treatment outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.