Sensitivity to change in well-being and health-related quality of life in adults with eating disorder symptoms: ICECAP-A versus EQ-5D-5L.

OBJECTIVE: Economic evaluations of treatments help to inform decisions on allocating health care resources. These evaluations involve comparing costs and effectiveness in terms of quality of life. To calculate quality-adjusted life years, generic health related quality of life is often used, but is criticized for not being sensitive to change in mental health populations. Another approach, using experienced well-being measured through capabilities with the ICECAP-A, has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this study was to investigate whether changes in individuals with eating disorder (ED) symptoms can be better captured using health related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) or well-being (ICECAP-A). METHOD: Measurements at two time points with an interval of 1 year were used from a sample of 233 participants with self-reported ED symptoms. An analysis of variance was used to test whether the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A differed in sensitivity to change over time. In order to compare the two questionnaires in terms of clinically significant outcome, the reliable change index and clinical cut-off score were calculated. RESULTS: The two questionnaires did not differ in sensitivity to change. More individuals had recovered but also more had deteriorated according to the EQ-5D-5L compared to the ICECAP. DISCUSSION: The present study revealed no differences in sensitivity to change in health-related quality of life or well-being in individuals with ED symptoms in the context of mild clinical change. Results corroborated the pervasiveness of low quality of life in this population, even after alleviation of ED symptoms. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Measuring treatment benefits in terms of improvements in quality of life is an integral part of economic evaluations in health care. It was expected that these treatment benefits would be better captured as changes in well-being (measured with the ICECAP-A) than as changes in health-related quality of life (measured with the EQ-5D-5L) for individuals with ED symptoms. Based on the results of this study, no preference for one of the two approaches was found.

Diverging effects of mentalization based treatment for patients with borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia: an explorative comparison.

Introduction: There is robust evidence that both patients with schizophrenia (SCZ) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) display mentalizing difficulties. Less is known however about differences in the way mentalization based treatment (MBT) impacts mentalizing capacity in SCZ and BPD patients. This study compares the impact of MBT on mentalizing capacity in individuals with SCZ and BPD. Method: The thematic apperception test was used to measure mentalizing capacity. It was administered at the beginning and end of treatment to 26 patients with SCZ and 28 patients with BPD who enrolled in an 18-month long MBT program. For comparison a sample of 28 SCZ patients who did not receive MBT was also included. Using the social cognition and object-relations system, these narratives were analyzed and scored. Missing data was imputed and analyzed using intention-to-treat ANCOVAs with post-treatment measures of mentalizing capacity as dependent variables, group type as independent variable and baseline mentalizing capacities as covariates. Results: Results showed that patients with BPD showed significantly more improvement on several measures of mentalizing, including complexity of representation (ηp2 = 0.50, ppooled < 0.001), understanding of social causality (ηp2 = 0.41, ppooled < 0.001) and emotional investment in relationships (ηp2 = 0.41, ppooled < 0.001) compared to patients with SCZ who received MBT. No differences were found regarding affect-tone of relationships (ηp2 = 0.04, ppooled = 0.36). SCZ patients who received MBT showed greater performance on understanding of social causality (ηp2 = 0.12, ppooled = 0.01) compared to SCZ patients who did not receive MBT, but no differences were observed on complexity of representations, capacity for emotional investment or affect-tone of relationships. Discussion: Patients with BPD performed better after receiving MBT on three dimensions of mentalizing capacity than SCZ patients who received MBT. Remarkably, SCZ patients who received MBT performed better on one dimension of mentalizing capacity compared to SCZ patients who did not receive MBT. Whereas MBT for BPD clearly involves improvement on most aspects of mentalizing, MBT for SCZ seems to thwart a further decline of other-oriented, cognitive mentalizing. Treatment goals should be adapted toward these disorder-specific characteristics.