EMDR and CBT had comparable completion rates and clinical outcomes.

The blind to therapist (B2T) protocol (Blore & Holmshaw, 2009a, 2009b) was devised to circumvent client unwillingness to describe traumatic memory content during eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). It has been used with at least six clinical presentations:•Reassertion of control among “executive decision makers”•Shame and embarrassment•Minimizing potential for vicarious traumatization•Cultural issues: avoiding distress being witnessed by a fellow countryman•Need for the presence of a translator versus prevention of information “leakage”•Reducing potential stalling in processing: client with severe stammerThis article details the history, development, and current status of the protocol, and provides case vignettes to illustrate each use. Clinical issues encountered when using the protocol and “dovetailing” the B2T protocol back into the standard protocol are also addressed.

Introduction Obsessive‐compulsive disorder (OCD) is usually treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) based on exposure and response prevention principles; although eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) has also been proposed as a potentially helpful treatment. Aim To investigate patients’ experiences of the process and outcome of CBT and EMDR. Method We conducted in‐depth qualitative interviews with 24 (EMDR = 14; CBT = 10) patients who participated in a randomised controlled trial. Interviews were conducted after the end of therapy, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using thematic analysis. Results Three superordinate themes were identified, including (1) common experiences and specific experiences of (2) CBT and (3) EMDR. Common experiences of therapy included difficulties in disclosing OCD problems; perceptions about therapists as approachable and nonjudgemental; sudden symptomatic improvements; difficulties in engaging with treatment; general satisfaction with therapy; and viewing OCD as a long‐term condition. Some differences between these interventions were also found in patients’ understanding of the treatment rationale, their experiences and difficulties with specific treatment procedures. Conclusions Common process factors were especially prominent in patients’ accounts, although it is possible that these interact with more specific change mechanisms such as desensitisation.

No abstract

No abstract