Abstract Background Despite being highly effective and guideline-recommended for obsessive-compulsive disorder, exposure with response prevention is often underused due to barriers from both therapists and patients. Virtual reality may help address these barriers. Objective This study aimed to assess the efficacy and acceptance of virtual exposure with response prevention (VERP) in patients with contamination obsessive-compulsive disorder (conOCD) and checking obsessive-compulsive disorder (checkOCD) and to identify factors influencing treatment success. Methods Within a randomized controlled trial, 80 participants (40 with conOCD and 40 with checkOCD) were allocated to an intervention group, which received outpatient care as usual (CAU) supplemented by 6 weekly VERP sessions (VERP group), or to a control group receiving CAU alone (CAU group). Assessments occurred at baseline (t0), postintervention (t1), and at 3-month follow-up (t2). The reduction in obsessive-compulsive symptoms, as measured with the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, served as the primary outcome. Results Overall, obsessive-compulsive symptoms showed no greater improvement in the VERP group compared to the CAU group from t0 to t1 or t2 (η p 2 =0.003-0.014). In exploratory subsample analyses, we observed a trend toward an interaction effect, showing greater reduction in obsessions among participants with checkOCD from t0 to t1 ( F 1,52 =3.91; P =.05; η p 2 =0.070) and greater anxiety reduction among participants with conOCD from t0 to t2 ( F 1,45 =4.11; P =.05; η p 2 =0.084). Exploratory moderation analysis suggested that adding VERP to CAU was more effective for those in the VERP group who had not prematurely discontinued prior psychological treatment and those with checking behavior. Sense of presence was only moderate, unrelated to outcome, and patient satisfaction with VERP was positive overall. Conclusions While overall symptom reduction did not significantly differ between groups, exploratory analyses suggested trend-level differences in treatment response across obsessive-compulsive disorder subtypes and patient characteristics. These findings should be interpreted cautiously and are best viewed as hypothesis-generating.
Rolvien et al. (Wed,) studied this question.