Background & Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of real and imaginal exposure-response prevention methods on the improvement of patients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder.

 Materials & Methods: This semi-experimental study was conducted on 45 patients (from psychiatry clinics and psychology center of Fatemi Hospital of Ardabil) with obsessive-compulsive disorder. The samples were selected through accessible sampling and were randomly put into three groups of real exposure - response prevention group (15 patients), imaginal exposure-response prevention group (15 patients), and control group (15 patients). In order to collect the data, Maudsely's Obsessive-Compulsive Scale and Clinical Structured Interview based on the DSM-IV were used. The raw scores from the pre-test and post-test were analyzed using ANOVA and Scheffe’s test.

 Results: The results revealed that there was a significant difference between both experimental (real and imaginal exposure-response prevention) and control groups. It was also manifested that real exposure-response prevention method, in comparison to imaginal exposure-response prevention method, was more effectual in reducing symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

 Conclusion: Accordingly, it can be claimed that to reduce the symptoms of obsession, real exposure-response prevention is more effective than imaginal exposure-response prevention. To explain this finding it can be said that the real encounter with fear stimulating situations -in comparison to imaginal exposure- creates more anxiety and this anxiety and apprehension caused real exposure response prevention to overcome the imaginal exposure.

  SOURCE: URMIA MED J 2015: 26(4): 289 ISSN: 1027-3727