Treating Hoarding Disorder in a real-world setting: Results from the Mental Health Association of San Francisco

• We compare group treatment for hoarding disorder led by psychologists to that led by peers.
• Participants in both groups improved at a rate consistent with previous work.
• We found no significant differences between treatment types at post treatment.
• Peer-led treatment was slightly more cost effective than psychologist-led treatment.

Hoarding Disorder (HD) is associated with substantial distress, impairment, and individual and societal costs. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) tailored to HD is the best-studied form of treatment and can be led by mental health professionals or by non-professionals (peers) with specific training. No previous study has directly compared outcomes for therapist-led and peer-led groups, and none have examined the effectiveness of these groups in a real-world setting. We used retrospective data to compare psychologist-led CBT groups (G-CBT) to groups led by peer facilitators using the Buried in Treasures workbooks (G-BiT) in individuals who sought treatment for HD from the Mental Health Association of San Francisco. The primary outcome was change in Hoarding Severity Scale scores. Approximate costs per participant were also examined. Both G-CBT and G-BiT showed improvement consistent with previous reports (22% improvement overall). After controlling for baseline group characteristics, there were no significant differences in outcomes between G-CBT and G-BiT. For G-CBT, where additional outcome data were available, functional impairment and severity of hoarding symptoms improved to a similar degree as compared to previous G-CBT studies, while hoarding-related cognition improved to a lesser degree (also consistent with previous studies). G-BiT cost approximately $100 less per participant than did G-CBT.