1 3 Evidence-Based Practice: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Treatment FirstName MiddleInitial(s) LastName Institutional

1

3

Evidence-Based Practice: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Treatment

FirstName MiddleInitial(s) LastName
Institutional Affiliation (Department Institution)
Course Number and Name
Instructor Name and Title
Assignment Due Date

Mental health problems have many treatment interventions, but the practice should be evidence-based to help patients with the best options to choose from. Evidence-based practice in treating disorders has been used for a long time since scientists believe it alleviates the problem. Obsessive compulsive disorder in teenagers was diagnosed among a group of teenagers in America since their behaviour was noted to have changed once they hit the age group of 12-17. This behavior is diagnosed as a disorder since it precipitates other impulsive disorder like ADHD, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiance disorder. This research paper aims to highlight how evidence-based treatment intervention is crucial for Obsessive compulsive disorder in teenagers and its disadvantages in the long term.

What makes obsessive compulsive disorder treatment evidence-based?

Obsessive compulsive disorder has been diagnosed from the DSM-5 as symptoms that eventually make the patients clash with society for going against their norms. Mental Obsessive  disorder have been cited as having a long-term effect on the psychological development of many teenagers since it is the age at which their emotions are imbalanced, repulsive, and often no consequential thinking. The treatment interventions in this instance are often displayed with the probabilistic nature of their circumstances (Freeman et al., 2018). Teenagers are often cited for having no impulse control and hence getting into trouble compared to adults. The DSM-5 provides the criteria to show how the disorder are treated with evidence-based treatment protocols. This thorough research, especially with the treatment intervention, on the trend of mental obsessive compulsive disorder, noticed in teenagers or children. However, Goodman et al., (2021) provide evidence of OCD being a precursor for the treatment methods provided to children (pp.17-29). A randomized trial shows how local anesthesia, administered either through conventional means, computerized, or vibrational, caused little shift in the children’s OCD. This shows that the treatment does not affect the disorder but that the diagnosis of the disorder should be treated medically.

The evidence-based treatment is also assumed to be well researched to provide a comprehensive diagnosis and treatment plan. OCD is categorized as a mental health issue; hence the best way to mitigate the problem is through medication. The teenagers’ emotional imbalance is credited to the hormonal imbalance in their bodies, which can only be controlled through medication. Meta-analysis research by Robbins et al.(2019) cites that the evidence can only be supported if the evidence is from a broader population study (pp.27-47). The first intervention for the psychopathology of OCD is parent-child interventions, which do not have much representation in Western culture. Evidence-based research requires evidence of the medicine working and the results and outcomes being seen in society (Goodman et al., 2021). Unlike the western world, it might be different in other cultures, but the research lacks documentation and the proper representative research for the long term. The best intervention for evidence-based treatment for OCD is having the best form of its process to show a more realistic way of handling the long-term problem of the process.

Evidence-based interventions are constantly being researched for the parameters and indicators of their future framework development. In developing a more robust family intervention treatment plan, as cited by Reid et al. (2021), it is imperative to study the interventions for doctors and psychiatrists to form a more accommodative solution for mental disorder obsessive compulsive disorder (152223). Culture can play a massive role in determining the best intervention method for the plan. However, OCD have been documented to ensure that the treatment results are viable enough to provide a more comprehensive aspect of the process for the right ways to handle the long-term outcome. If the treatment of teenagers, especially those with obsessive compulsive disorder, requires medication, then the research has been conducted and is said to be viable enough to provide the proper methods through which people can conduct themselves (Robbins et al., 2019). There is an issue in promoting an intervention method with no evidence since the basis for the treatment will not be viewed as scientific. For the intervention method to work, there should be confidence in ensuring that all the probabilistic and natural inclinations of the treatment plans are provided for a robust look at how the treatment helps the teenagers.

The evidence-based treatment for the obsessive compulsive disorder is targeted toward young adolescents. This proves the evidence-based treatment plan since it highlights how the outcome theory’s problem and issues are viewed for evidence-based research’s viability. Reid et al. (2021) Also, children’s mental obsessive compulsive disorder is consistently cited as the least probable aspect of the problem (152223). There are certified long-term thresholds to help with the natural aspects of the problem since young people are cited to be destructive in the long term. The problem with a destructive young person is the constant reminder that the issues are not resolved if they can handle them amicably (Freeman et al., 2018). The treatment of OCD within the context of the issue-based problem and not science-based often determines the outcome of the problem. There are constant issues that show how well or poorly certain aspects of the scientific study are done and how well the problem with the intervention is provided for within the longest time possible.

Healthcare psychology professionals are often challenged to assist patients in engaging in multiple health disorder changes to attain an overall healthier status from their retrogressive patterns. Notably, some health hazards ailing individuals, such as obesity, cardiac complications, and liver problems, among others, result from several negative disorder, which should all be addressed consecutively to have a meaningful and productive outcome. As noted by Robbins et al. (2019), interventions that focus on changing multiple and often prevalent unhealthy disorder have the potential of being cost-effective and having a maximum output resulting in healthier lifestyles (pp.27-47). Notably, several situations might require an individual to change multiple disorder in the same context to achieve a common goal. An example of such a situation is when an individual is required to quit eating junk food, to start, to start dieting, and regularly engage in physical exercises to address an impending obesity problem. Intervention should be implemented consecutively in such instances since one negative disorder can adversely affect an individual’s health outcome.

According to Del Casale et al. (2019), the combination of diet and physical activity positively affected health changes (pp.710-736). Using mobile technology to record the intervention progress was a unique and compelling incentive to ensure disorder change. It allowed self-monitoring of disorder change and enabled paraprofessionals to offer to coach several participants remotely. One thing that stood out for me about the intervention in the article above is that it involved participants in self-monitoring using mobile technology instead of showing up physically for the study process, as is the case with most intervention programs (Reid et al., 2021). This type of intervention means that success is relative to one’s discipline and consistency in following the instructions given remotely by the coaches. To this end, this intervention can be improved by periodic physical evaluations of all participants to ensure that everyone is keeping up with the program’s requirements.

The social disorganization theory is a common justification. Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, two social scientists at the University of Chicago who examined the delinquency rates in that city during the first three decades of the 20th century, are generally credited with developing this strategy. The city’s inner areas were initially populated by English, German, and Irish immigrants, Eastern European immigrants, and African Americans who relocated there from southern states (Del Casale et al., 2019). During this time, Chicago’s ethnic makeup significantly changed. No matter whether ethnic groups resided there, Shaw and McKay discovered that the inner zones of Chicago continually had the most outstanding delinquency rates (Del Casale et al., 2019). They also discovered that as these ethnic groups moved to the city’s outer regions, their delinquency rates began to fall. Shaw and McKay hypothesized that the inner zones of Chicago experienced social disorganization. A weakening of social institutions like the family, school, and religion sometimes weakens the strength of social bonds and norms and the efficacy of socialization. This reasoning served to explain these related patterns. According to current research, communities with various structural issues, such as high rates of residential mobility, population density, poverty, and single-parent households, have higher crime rates.

Scholars contend that people of underprivileged, migratory, and racially diverse areas cannot control undesirable or criminal conduct. With an emphasis on the Chicago Area Project and other initiatives to improve local citizens’ ability to prevent crime, this research paper illustrates the social disorganization theory (Del Casale et al., 2019). It examines the applicability of this theory in crime prevention projects. Proper research studies on the social disorganization theory can aid government and law enforcement policy-makers in designing policies that help avoid criminal conduct in poor communities and make it safer for everyone by helping them make informed judgments based on the evidence.

Why the intervention is not viable for the future

Despite OCD being labelled a mental health disorder with evidence of treatment working over the years, the long-term effect is the constant sedation of children due to their disorder. Obsessive compulsive disorder should be categorized as a social problem since teenagers go through phase change with their unbalanced emotions and irrational thinking. This treatment intervention of prescribing medication to calm them down shows that people cannot deal with the problem (Del Casale et al., 2019). Often the circumstances of the children drive them to act up and not be controlled. Parenting has always been difficult, especially with teenagers who cannot be controlled. However, the future diagnostic program should focus on the social problem and how the interventions can be reduced to social work or talking to teenagers.

Often the problem could be just having attention or being allowed to express themselves freely. It might be difficult for parents to cede control to their children, but it is advisable.

Mental health problems are a reality, and with technology, ADHD, social anxiety, the children, and the constant bombardment of societal expectations might be difficult for people to relate to. However, the outcome is often guaranteed if the promise of a better future is given to them. Society should always consider the sociological aspect of the disorder to provide a longer-lasting solution for the children (Del Casale et al., 2019). This is similar to the defiance in schools, violence, and other social outliers often experienced by the youth. A majority of the population might recover when they have an honest conversation with their parents, as this creates a rapport and enables them to have an inclusive mindset whereby they can be heard. However, if the opposite is not achieved, the outcome is often viewed as not providing the right way.

Conclusion

Evidence-based interventions are crucial since they enable health care professionals to study evidence of what worked and interventions that did not. However, the health interventions for obsessive compulsive disorder always depend on culture; for the western world, the best intervention is medicine. However, studies for low and middle-income countries cite that medical interventions are expensive and inconsistent since they interfere with the normal development of the brain and the long-term outcome of how the treatment intervention might work. It could be beneficial for psychiatrists to prescribe medicine to defiant youth, but the sedation of disorder has never been a long-term solution to a problem. The extent to which the solution can be provided for and ignoring that most people cannot have the proper probability measures shows how well or poorly the treatment criteria and intervention methods are biased. However, as science dictates, evidence-based interventions are popular since there are many documented research papers on their experiments, success, and failures. However, soft and social intervention for social problems always lacks enough documented evidence from scientific journals since, in western culture, it is the most unpopular intervention method. If the problem had a comprehensive treatment plan for the right outcome, then the issue would be resolved; however, with minimal research, there is a chance that medical intervention would be the best option. Culture plays a role in administering the intervention methods since they show how well the problem can be resolved without involving medicine and sedation. In some societies, children are socialized into age groups to help them learn and control their emotions through spending time with their peers. This might not have adequate literature or evidence, but in some countries, especially third-world countries, it has been documented to have worked.

References

Del Casale, A., Sorice, S., Padovano, A., Simmaco, M., Ferracuti, S., & Lamis, D. et al. (2019). Psychopharmacological Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Current Neuropharmacology, 17(8), 710-736. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159×16666180813155017

Freeman, J., Benito, K., Herren, J., Kemp, J., Sung, J., & Georgiadis, C. et al. (2018). Evidence Base Update of Psychosocial Treatments for Pediatric Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Evaluating, Improving, and Transporting What Works. Journal of Clinical Child &Amp; Adolescent Psychology, 47(5), 669-698. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2018.1496443

Goodman, W., Storch, E., & Sheth, S. (2021). Harmonizing the Neurobiology and Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 178(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20111601

Reid, J., Laws, K., Drummond, L., Vismara, M., Grancini, B., Mpavaenda, D., & Fineberg, N. (2021). Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with Exposure and Response Prevention in the Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 106, 152223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2021.152223

Robbins, T., Vaghi, M., & Banca, P. (2019). Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Puzzles and Prospects. Neuron, 102(1), 27-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.046