Impact of clinical severity on treatment response in a randomized controlled trial comparing day hospital and intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment for borderline personality disorder.

This study examined the impact of clinical severity on treatment outcome in two programs that differ markedly in treatment intensity: day hospital mentalization-based treatment (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment (MBT-IOP) for borderline personality disorder (BPD). A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants include the full intention-to-treat sample of the original trial of N = 114 randomized BPD patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44), who were assessed at baseline and subsequently every 6 up to 36 months after start of treatment. Outcomes were general symptom severity, borderline features, and interpersonal functioning. Clinical severity was examined in terms of severity of BPD, general symptom severity, comorbid symptom disorders, comorbid personality disorders, and cluster C personality features. None of the severity measures was related to treatment outcome or differentially predicted treatment outcome in MBT-DH and MBT-IOP, with the exception of a single moderating effect of co morbid symptom disorders on outcome in terms of BPD features, indicating less improvement in MBT-DH for patients with more symptom disorders. Overall, patients with varying levels of clinical severity benefited equally from MBT-DH and MBT-IOP, indicating that clinical severity may not be a useful criterion to differentiate in treatment intensity.

Comparing the clinical utility of the alternative model for personality disorders to the Section II personality disorder model: A randomized controlled trial.

The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) has been extensively studied over the past decade, but to date there is no direct comparison of the clinical utility of the AMPD model relative to the Section II personality disorder (PD) model in an ecologically valid design. The current study examined the clinical utility of an AMPD-informed assessment procedure and Section II PD assessment procedure as assessed by both patients and clinicians in a randomized controlled trial. A sample of 119 patients were randomly assigned to either an AMPD or a Section II PD assessment procedure. At the end of the assessment, patients filled out questionnaires pertaining to clinical utility, satisfaction, motivation for treatment, and general experience of the assessment. Clinicians who subsequently started treatment with these patients also completed two clinical utility questionnaires. There were no significant differences between the AMPD and Section II PD assessment procedure on patients' reported clinical utility, motivation for treatment, satisfaction, and general experience of the assessment nor were there significant differences between the models on clinician reported clinical utility. Explorative analyses revealed that, for patients, a positive relationship with the assessor was predictive of experienced utility. This study shows no superiority of the AMPD in terms of clinical utility but suggests that the alliance with the assessor is a particularly salient factor in clinical utility. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.

The present study investigated the predictive validity of Criterion A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) compared to the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) model in predicting patient outcomes 1 year after initial assessment, in a hetero-method longitudinal design. A clinical sample of 84 participants were administered both traditional Section II and AMPD interviews by two independent interviewers. One year after assessment, disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) and symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory) were assessed. The Section II PD model did not predict disability (R² = .01) nor symptom severity (R² = .03). The AMPD model, on the other hand, predicted both disability (R² = .23) and symptom severity (R² = .29) 1-year postinitial assessment. Both Criterion A and B were significant predictors, but when jointly combined only Criterion A remained significantly predictive of both disability and symptom severity while Criterion B did not. Criterion A thus appears to capture core vulnerabilities of personality-disordered patients that are related to future functioning and symptom severity. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

A systematic research review of collaborative assessment methods.

Collaborative assessment methods (CAMs) involve working with clients during all phases of the assessment process, from goal definition to interpretation of the testing results to the recommendations and conclusions. In this article, we define CAMs, provide clinical examples, and then meta-analyze the published literature to assess their effectiveness on distal treatment outcomes. Our meta-analytic results indicate that CAMs have positive effects on three outcome domains: a moderate effect on treatment processes, a small-to-moderate effect on personal growth, and a small effect on symptom reduction. There is little research evidence on the immediate, in-session effects of CAMs. We include diversity considerations, training implications. and therapeutic practices grounded in this research evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Economic evaluation of day hospital versus intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment alongside a randomized controlled trial with 36-month follow-up.

Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) has demonstrated robust effectiveness in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in both day-hospital (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP) programs. Given the large differences in intensity and associated treatment costs, there is a need for studies comparing their cost-effectiveness. A health economic evaluation of MBT-DH versus MBT-IOP was performed alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 36-month follow-up. In three mental health-care institutions in the Netherlands, 114 patients were randomly allocated to MBT-DH (n = 70) or MBT-IOP (n = 44) and assessed every 6 months. Societal costs were compared with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and the number of months in remission over 36 months. The QALY gains over 36 months were 1.96 (SD = .58) for MBT-DH and 1.83 (SD = .56) for MBT-IOP; the respective number of months in remission were 16.0 (SD = 11.5) and 11.1 (SD = 10.7). Societal costs were €106,038 for MBT-DH and €91,368 for MBT-IOP. The incremental cost for one additional QALY with MBT-DH compared with MBT-IOP was €107,000. The incremental cost for 1 month in remission was almost €3000. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 for a QALY, there was a 33% likelihood that MBT-DH is more cost-effective than MBT-IOP in terms of costs per QALY. Although MBT-DH leads to slightly more QALYs and remission months, it is probably not cost-effective when compared with MBT-IOP for BPD patients, as the small additional health benefits in MBT-DH did not outweigh the substantially higher societal costs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Do high-risk couples profit more or less from couple relationship education programs than low-risk couples? Room for improvement and vulnerability effects.

In recent years it has been discussed whether high-risk couples benefit more from Couple Relationship Education programs (CREs) than low-risk couples due to larger room for improvement, or profit less due to greater vulnerability. Pertinent response prediction studies yielded inconclusive results. Careful review suggests this may be due to: statistical handling (not disentangling room for improvement and vulnerability effects), time frame analyzed (not disentangling opposing effects during intervention and follow-up), sampling, and selection of risk factors. We used an analytic strategy that maximized odds for replicability and tested two hypotheses: (1) room for improvement: pre-intervention relationship dissatisfaction predicts gain in satisfaction during intervention, and decline during follow up, and (2) vulnerability: when adjusted for room for improvement (pre-intervention relationship dissatisfaction), risk factors show negative or negligible, but no positive associations with gain in satisfaction. Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) was employed in 79 self-referred (SR) couples and 50 clinician-referred (CR) couples who had completed the 'Hold me Tight' program, a CRE based on Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy. Our findings supported both the room for improvement hypothesis, with pre-intervention dissatisfaction predicting more gain during intervention (both samples) and decline during follow-up (SR sample, for the CR sample the effect was negligible), and the vulnerability hypothesis, as several negative, but no positive effects of risk factors were observed during intervention and follow-up. Specific risk factors did not replicate between samples. To promote replicable results in future research, we advocate disentangling room for improvement and vulnerability effects, separately testing effects during intervention and follow-up, purposeful sampling, and studying a large set of risk factors including partner variables.

Towards optimal treatment selection for borderline personality disorder patients (BOOTS): a study protocol for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing schema therapy and dialectical behavior therapy.

BACKGROUND: Specialized evidence-based treatments have been developed and evaluated for borderline personality disorder (BPD), including Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Schema Therapy (ST). Individual differences in treatment response to both ST and DBT have been observed across studies, but the factors driving these differences are largely unknown. Understanding which treatment works best for whom and why remain central issues in psychotherapy research. The aim of the present study is to improve treatment response of DBT and ST for BPD patients by a) identifying patient characteristics that predict (differential) treatment response (i.e., treatment selection) and b) understanding how both treatments lead to change (i.e., mechanisms of change). Moreover, the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT and ST will be evaluated. METHODS: The BOOTS trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in a routine clinical setting in several outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 200 participants, to be randomized to DBT or ST. Patients receive a combined program of individual and group sessions for a maximum duration of 25 months. Data are collected at baseline until three-year follow-up. Candidate predictors of (differential) treatment response have been selected based on the literature, a patient representative of the Borderline Foundation of the Netherlands, and semi-structured interviews among 18 expert clinicians. In addition, BPD-treatment-specific (ST: beliefs and schema modes; DBT: emotion regulation and skills use), BPD-treatment-generic (therapeutic environment characterized by genuineness, safety, and equality), and non-specific (attachment and therapeutic alliance) mechanisms of change are assessed. The primary outcome measure is change in BPD manifestations. Secondary outcome measures include functioning, additional self-reported symptoms, and well-being. DISCUSSION: The current study contributes to the optimization of treatments for BPD patients by extending our knowledge on "Which treatment - DBT or ST - works the best for which BPD patient, and why?", which is likely to yield important benefits for both BPD patients (e.g., prevention of overtreatment and potential harm of treatments) and society (e.g., increased economic productivity of patients and efficient use of treatments). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7699 , registered 25/04/2019 - retrospectively registered.

Trauma and Outcomes of Mentalization-Based Therapy for Individuals With Borderline Personality Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Recent meta-analyses suggest that many patients with borderline personality disorder have a history of complex trauma. Although trauma is central in mentalization-based approaches to the understanding of borderline personality disorder, surprisingly little is known about the effects of trauma on outcomes of mentalization-based treatment (MBT). This article investigates the prevalence and impact of childhood trauma among patients with borderline personality disorder participating in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP). METHODS: All 114 patients from the original multicenter RCT in the Netherlands were included in this study. Childhood trauma was assessed at baseline (with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire), and its impact on symptom severity, interpersonal functioning, and borderline pathology was investigated through multilevel modeling for 36 months after the start of treatment. RESULTS: Childhood trauma was common among patients with borderline personality disorder referred to MBT, with more than 85% meeting cutoff criteria for substantial childhood trauma. Childhood trauma had little impact on outcomes of either MBT-DH or MBT-IOP in terms of improved borderline personality disorder features or interpersonal functioning. However, patients with substantial childhood trauma seemed to improve more rapidly with MBT-DH, as compared with MBT-IOP, in terms of symptom severity. In addition, patients with a history of emotional neglect showed more rapid changes in symptoms of borderline personality disorder with MBT-DH compared with MBT-IOP. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are discussed in the context of a social communicative approach to borderline personality disorder, with a focus on the need to address trauma in MBT.

Day hospital versus intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment: 3-year follow-up of patients treated for borderline personality disorder in a multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Two types of mentalization-based treatment (MBT), day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP), have been shown to be effective in treating patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study evaluated trajectories of change in a multi-site trial of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. METHODS: All 114 patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44) from the original multicentre trial were assessed at 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. The primary outcome was symptom severity measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality and interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling and the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Patients in both MBT-DH and MBT-IOP maintained the substantial improvements made during the intensive treatment phase and showed further gains during follow-up. Across both conditions, 83% of patients improved in terms of symptom severity, and 97% improved on borderline symptomatology. No significant differences were found between MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. However, trajectories of change were different. Whereas patients in MBT-DH showed greater improvement during the intensive treatment phase, patients in MBT-IOP showed greater continuing improvement during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in both conditions showed similar large improvements over the course of 36 months, despite large differences in treatment intensity. MBT-DH and MBT-IOP were associated with different trajectories of change. Cost-effectiveness considerations and predictors of differential treatment outcome may further inform optimal treatment selection.

Changes in the classification of personality disorders: Comparing the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder model to the alternative model for personality disorders using structured clinical interviews.

The current study examined the continuity of personality disorder (PD) diagnoses from Section II to Section III (alternative model for personality disorders [AMPD]) when using structured interviews. We investigated the continuity both in terms of stability of prevalence rates and in terms of convergent validity. A clinical sample of 189 participants were concurrently administered both Section II PD and AMPD interviews for diagnosing PD by 2 independent interviewers. Stability of prevalence between the models for specific PD diagnoses was generally supported. A higher prevalence of trait-specified PD in the AMPD model resulted in higher prevalence of PD in general when using the AMPD model compared with the Section II PD model. Correlations between matching criterion counts according to both models were generally high. Convergence between the Section II PD and AMPD model categorical diagnoses was adequate for the most frequently diagnosed and studied PDs (i.e., avoidant-, borderline-, and antisocial PD), but lower than previously found, likely due to the stringent test-retest design used in this study. Convergence between the models for narcissistic and obsessive-compulsive PD was low and could not be estimated for schizotypal PD. Future studies should investigate which of both models may prove to be most valid in terms of predicting current and future impairments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Do We Hold Males and Females to the Same Standard? A Measurement Invariance Study on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.

Psychopathy in females has been understudied. Extant data on gender comparisons using the predominant measure of assessment in clinical practice, the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), points to a potential lack of measurement invariance (MI). If indeed the instrument does not perform equally (well) in both genders, straightforward comparison of psychopathy scores in males and females is unwarranted. Using a sample of female and male forensic patients (N = 110 and N = 147 respectively), we formally tested for MI in a structural equation modeling framework. We found that the PCL-R in its current form does not attain full MI. Four items showed threshold-biases and particularly Factor 2 (the Social Deviance Factor) is gender biased. Based on our findings, it seems reasonable to expect that specific scoring adjustments might go a long way in bringing about more equivalent assessment of psychopathic features in men and women. Only then can we begin to meaningfully compare the genders on the prevalence, structure, and external correlates of psychopathy.

Client and Clinical Utility of the Assessment of Personality Disorders.

ABSTRACT: Clinical utility and client utility are important desirable properties when developing and evaluating a new classification system for mental disorders. This study reports on four focus groups followed up by a Delphi study among clinicians working with clients with personality disorders (PD) and clients with PD themselves to harness both user groups' perspectives on the utility of PD diagnosis. Our findings show that the client and clinician views of the concept of utility were closely aligned and include aspects of transparency of communication and the ability of an assessment to enhance hope, curiosity, motivation, and insight into a client's personality patterns. Unique to clinicians' appraisal was the ability of an assessment to capture both vulnerabilities and resilience of clients and to give information about the prognosis in treatment. Unique to clients' appraisal was the ability of an assessment to be destigmatizing and collaborative. These findings may serve to expand our definition and measurement of clinical utility, in that collaborative and nonstigmatizing procedures likely promote client acceptability. To capture both aspects, we offer two preliminary questionnaires (i.e., item sets open to further empirical testing) based on the data derived from the Delphi procedure.

Investigating the stress-related fluctuations of level of personality functioning: A critical review and agenda for future research.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) proposed a dimensional approach to the assessment of personality disorders (PDs). Both models dictate that the clinician first determines PD severity before assessing maladaptive traits, invoking the level of personality functioning (LPF) construct. We consider LPF a promising dimensional construct for translational research because of its clinical importance and conceptual overlap with the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Social Processes. We aim to identify biomarkers that co-vary with fluctuations in LPF in adulthood, ultimately to predict persistent decrease in LPF, associated with suicidality and morbidity. However, a theoretical framework to investigate stress-related oscillations in LPF is currently missing. In this article, we aim to fill this hiatus with a critical review about stress and LPF. First, we discuss acute stress and LPF. We briefly present the basics of the neurophysiological stress response and review the literature on momentary and daily fluctuations in LPF, both at a subjective and physiological level. Second, we review the effects of chronic stress on brain function and social behaviour and recapitulate the main findings from prospective cohort studies. This review underlies our suggestions for multimethod assessment of stress-related oscillations in LPF and our theoretical framework for future longitudinal studies, in particular studies using the experience sampling method (ESM).

Satisfying and stable couple relationships: Attachment similarity across partners can partially buffer the negative effects of attachment insecurity.

Insecure attachment in couples is negatively associated with relationship functioning. Similarity of partner attachment on the other hand might attenuate such relationship outcomes. We tested the opposing insecurity and similarity hypotheses by examining associations of attachment with relationship satisfaction and instability in a representative community sample of couples (N = 1,014). We expected: (a) negative effects of insecure attachment (main effects of actor and partner avoidance and anxiety, and interaction effects consistent with fearful-avoidance and demand-withdraw patterns); and (b) positive effects of similarity in avoidance and anxiety. Actor-Partner-Interdependence Models showed clear support for the insecurity hypothesis. Main effects of avoidance and anxiety, explained 46.2% of the variance of satisfaction, and 17.9% of instability. We conclude that reducing insecurity of attachment, in particular avoidance, must be a central target in couple therapy. Interestingly, similarity of attachment can partially buffer the negative effects of attachment insecurity. Clinical implications are discussed.

Mentalization-Based Treatment Versus Specialist Treatment as Usual for Borderline Personality Disorder: Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial With 36-Month Follow-Up.

The authors present an economic evaluation performed alongside a randomized controlled trial of mentalization-based treatment in a day hospital setting (MBT-DH) versus specialist treatment as usual (S-TAU) for borderline personality disorder (BPD) with a 36-month follow-up period. Ninety-five patients from two Dutch treatment institutes were randomly assigned. Societal costs were compared with the proportion of BPD remissions and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured using the five-dimensional EuroQol instrument. The incremental societal costs for one additional QALY could not be calculated. The costs for one additional BPD remission with MBT-DH are approximately €29,000. There was a 58% likelihood that MBT-DH leads to more remitted patients at additional costs compared with S-TAU, and a 35% likelihood that MBT-DH leads to more remissions at lower costs. MBT-DH is not cost-effective compared with S-TAU with QALYs as the outcome, and slightly more cost-effective than S-TAU at 36 months with BPD symptoms as the outcome.

Assessing Criterion A in adolescents using the Semistructured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5.

Accumulating evidence supports the reliability and validity of the diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs) in adolescents, but whether the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), criteria are optimal to capture and help detect emerging PDs in this age-group remains controversial. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), included in the alternative model for personality disorders, may provide a more developmentally sensitive way to identify impaired personality features in young people. This study investigates the feasibility of the LPFS in adolescents by examining the psychometric properties of the Semistructured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 in a clinical sample of referred adolescents (N = 84) and in a community sample (N = 12). Additionally, referred adolescents completed self-report questionnaires pertaining to symptom severity, personality functioning, and personality traits. In general, good interrater reliability and internal consistency were observed, and the associations with external variables largely followed theoretical prediction. Interestingly, and in contrast to data on adults, we found no significant associations between the LPFS scores on the one hand and traditional DSM-5 PD diagnoses in the clinical sample on the other (except for borderline PD criteria). In discussing these findings, we argue that the assessment of personality functioning may be better suited for detecting personality pathology in adolescence than the traditional Section II criteria. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

When and how assessment matters: An update on the Treatment Utility of Clinical Assessment (TUCA).

The Treatment Utility of Clinical Assessment (TUCA) has long been a controversial topic, with arguably more (strong) opinions than relevant, well-designed empirical research. We argue that this question has been tackled too broadly and that a more contextualized approach would likely be more informative. Instead of asking "what is the treatment utility of assessment," we suggest specifying and examining more closely the conditions by which assessment can-or cannot-contribute to treatment process and ultimately patient benefit. To this end, we present a heuristic model for conceptualizing the conditions under which clinical assessment may have treatment utility and illustrate its use by distinguishing four specific classes of assessment-driven interventions. We distinguish direct benefits from assessment from indirect TUCA as two principal pathways, emphasize the importance of having some a priori theory regarding working mechanisms, and stress the requirements of ensuring adequate variability of the presumed mediating variables. These considerations in turn argue for a broader view of pertinent outcome measures, the use of more powerful designs in TUCA research, and the implementation of some form of stepped assessment in clinical practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

From adaptive to maladaptive fear: Heterogeneity in threat and safety learning across response systems in a representative sample.

Individual differences in fear learning are a crucial prerequisite for the translational value of the fear-conditioning model. In a representative sample (N = 936), we used latent class growth models to detect individual differences in associative fear learning. For a series of subsequent test phases varying in ambiguity (i.e., acquisition, extinction, generalization, reinstatement, and re-extinction), conditioned responding was assessed on three response domains (i.e., subjective distress, startle responding, and skin conductance). We also associated fear learning across the different test phases and response domains with selected personality traits related to risk and resilience for anxiety, namely Harm Avoidance, Stress Reaction, and Wellbeing (MPQ; Tellegen and Waller, 2008). Heterogeneity in fear learning was evident, with fit indices suggesting subgroups for each outcome measure. Identified subgroups showed adaptive, maladaptive, or limited-responding patterns. For subjective distress, fear and safety learning was more maladaptive in the subgroups high on Harm Avoidance, while more adaptive learning was observed in subgroups with medium Harm Avoidance and the limited- or non-responders were lowest in Harm Avoidance. Distress subgroups did not differ in Stress Reaction or Wellbeing. Startle and SCR subgroups did not differ on selected personality traits. The heterogeneity in fear-learning patterns resembled risk and resilient anxiety development observed in real life, which supports the associative fear-learning paradigm as a useful translational model for pathological fear development.

Scripting the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders assessment procedure: A clinically feasible multi-informant multi-method approach.

Published case studies on the DSM-5 (section III) Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) generally utilized unstandardized assessment procedures or mono-method approaches. We present a case from clinical practice to illustrate a standardized, clinically feasible procedure for assessing personality pathology according to the full AMPD model, using a multi-method approach. We aim to present a procedure that can guide and inspire clinicians that are going to work with dimensional models as presented in DSM-5 and ICD-11. Specifically, we show how questionnaire and interview data from multiple sources (i.e. patient and family) can be combined. The clinical case also illustrates how Criterion A (i.e. functioning) and B (i.e. traits) are interrelated, suggesting that the joint assessment of both Criterion A and B is necessary for a comprehensive and clinically relevant case formulation. It also highlights how multi-method information can enhance diagnostic formulations. Finally, we show how the AMPD model can serve treatment planning and provide suggestions for how patient feedback might be delivered. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.