ArticleWellcome open research2026
Conceptualisation of a novel cognitive process in obsessive-compulsive disorder: A Delphi study on excessive rationalisation.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a common mental illness which involves intrusive thoughts and compulsive behaviours. Thought control strategies are a common factor in OCD, yet they are understudied and under-addressed in existing treatments. Excessive rationalisation is a novel conceptualisation of OCD-related thought control, describing a stressful process of arguing with or attempting to explain away unwanted thoughts. Investigation of this concept could offer a new perspective on the cognitive experience of OCD which may be missed or unappreciated within existing treatments. Method: The Delphi method was used to develop a pool of items that could describe this new concept. Twenty people with lived experience of OCD took part in four rounds. In the first round, responses to open-ended questions were used to generate a list of items which described the concept. In Rounds 2 and 3 participants rated the items so as to refine the initial list. In Round 4 participants ranked the items in order of how well they described excessive rationalisation. Results: Across the rounds a total of 61 items were generated. Thirty-one items were then discarded, either because they did not reach consensus, did not describe excessive rationalisation, or were redundant. Ninety per cent of participants (strongly) agreed that the final pool of 30 items described the concept of excessive rationalisation. Conclusions: The present research drew on lived experience to conceptualise a novel concept which may be important for understanding OCD and its persistence.
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.