ArticlePloS one2026
Brief intervention, lasting impact: One-year outcomes of the Bergen 4-day treatment for OCD in Germany.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considering Access and Methodological Rigor in Framing Results of the Bergen 4 Day Treatment Program for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Making Sense of Non-Response: What Patients Teach Us About Concentrated Exposure Therapy for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a prevalent and highly disabling mental disorder. Worldwide, it is associated with substantial individual suffering and long-term societal costs. Although exposure and response prevention (ERP) is the recommended first-line treatment, access to effective care remains limited for reasons such as long treatment duration. These barriers contribute to persistent global treatment gaps. The Bergen 4-Day Treatment (B4DT) is a brief, concentrated form of ERP (cERP) designed to improve treatment efficiency and access. Although initial outcomes are promising, long-term data from countries other than Norway are limited. This study evaluated the 12-month outcomes of the B4DT in a German day-patient treatment setting, exploring its sustained effectiveness and feasibility outside its original context.
methodsFifty-eight adults with OCD received B4DT in an uncontrolled study and were reassessed 12 months after treatment. The primary outcome was OCD severity, assessed with the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Secondary outcomes included depressive symptoms, global functioning, self-efficacy, experiential avoidance, self-esteem, quality of life, and mental health service utilization.
resultsLarge reductions in OCD symptom severity (Y-BOCS) and significant improvements across most secondary outcomes were sustained at the 12-month follow-up. One year after treatment, 69% of participants met criteria for treatment response, 51% had achieved remission, and 78% showed reliable clinical improvement. No clinically relevant symptom deterioration was observed, and treatment acceptability and follow-up retention were high. Importantly, only a small proportion of patients (n = 4; 7%) required inpatient treatment during the follow-up period.
conclusionThese findings demonstrate that brief cERP can achieve durable clinical benefits for patients with OCD when implemented outside its original context. From a global mental health and health policy perspective, the combination of short treatment duration, sustained effectiveness, and low subsequent use of inpatient services suggests that cERP represents a scalable and resource-efficient strategy to expand access to evidence-based OCD treatment across diverse health care systems.
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.