Effectiveness of Predominantly Group Schema Therapy and Combined Individual and Group Schema Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Schema therapy (ST), delivered either in an individual or group format, has been compared with other active treatments for borderline personality disorder (BPD). To our knowledge, the 2 formats have not been compared with treatment as usual (TAU) or with each other. Such comparisons help determine best treatment practices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether ST is more effectively delivered in a predominantly group or combined individual and group format and whether ST is more effective than optimal TAU for BPD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this multicenter, 3-arm randomized clinical trial conducted at 15 sites in 5 countries (Australia, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, and the UK), outpatients aged 18 to 65 years who had BPD were recruited between June 29, 2010, and May 18, 2016, to receive either predominantly group ST (PGST), combined individual and group ST (IGST), or optimal TAU. Data were analyzed from June 4, 2019, to December 29, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: At each site, cohorts of 16 to 18 participants were randomized 1:1 to PGST vs TAU or IGST vs TAU. Both ST formats were delivered over 2 years, with 2 sessions per week in year 1 and the frequency gradually decreasing during year 2. Assessments were collected by blinded assessors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the change in BPD severity over time, assessed with the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index (BPDSI) total score. Treatment retention was analyzed as a secondary outcome using generalized linear mixed model survival analysis. RESULTS: Of 495 participants (mean [SD] age, 33.6 [9.4] years; 426 [86.2%] female), 246 (49.7%) received TAU, 125 (25.2%) received PGST, and 124 (25.0%) received IGST (1 of whom later withdrew consent). PGST and IGST combined were superior to TAU with regard to reduced BPD severity (Cohen d, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.29-1.18; P < .001). For this outcome, IGST was superior to TAU (Cohen d, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.57-1.71; P < .001) and PGST (Cohen d, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.09-1.59; P = .03), whereas PGST did not differ significantly from TAU (Cohen d, 0.30; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.89; P = .32). Treatment retention was greater in the IGST arm than in the PGST (1 year: 0.82 vs 0.72; 2 years: 0.74 vs. 0.62) and TAU (1 year: 0.82 vs 0.73; 2 years: 0.74 vs 0.64) arms, and there was no significant difference between the TAU and PGST arms (1 year: 0.73 vs 0.72; 2 years: 0.64 vs 0.62). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, IGST was more effective and had greater treatment retention compared with TAU and PGST. These findings suggest that IGST is the preferred ST format, with high retention and continuation of improvement in BPD severity after the completion of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR2392.

Schema therapy for borderline personality disorder: A qualitative study of patients' perceptions.

Schema therapy (ST) has been found to be effective in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD). However very little is known about how the therapy is experienced by individuals with BPD including which specific elements of ST are helpful or unhelpful from their perspectives. The aim of this study is to explore BPD patients' experiences of receiving ST, in intensive group or combined group-individual format. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 36 individuals with a primary diagnosis of BPD (78% females) who received ST for at least 12 months. Participants were recruited as part of an international, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). Interview data (11 Australian, 12 Dutch, 13 German) were analyzed following the procedures of qualitative content analysis. Patients' perceptions of the benefits gained in ST included improved self-understanding, and better awareness and management of their own emotional processes. While some aspects of ST, such as experiential techniques were perceived as emotionally confronting, patient narratives informed that this was necessary. Some recommendations for improved implementation of ST include the necessary adjunct of individual sessions to group ST and early discussion of therapy termination. Implications of the findings are also discussed, in particular the avenues for assessing the suitability of patients for group ST; management of group conflict and the optimal format for delivering treatment in the intensive group versus combined group-individual formats.

The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale - Revised.

BACKGROUND: Recent research has supported the efficacy of schema therapy as a treatment for personality disorders. A group format has been developed (group schema therapy; GST), which has been suggested to improve both the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the treatment. AIMS: Efficacy studies of GST need to assess treatment fidelity. The aims of the present study were to improve, describe and evaluate a fidelity measure for GST, the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale - Revised (GSTRS-R). METHOD: Following a pilot study on an initial version of the scale (GSTRS), items were revised and guidelines were modified in order to improve the reliability of the scale. Students highly experienced with the scale rated recorded GST therapy sessions using the GSTRS-R in addition to a group cohesion measure, the Harvard Community Health Plan Group Cohesiveness Scale - II (GCS-II). The scores were used to assess internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the scores on the GSTRS-R with the GCS-II. RESULTS: The GSTRS-R displayed substantial internal consistency and inter-rater reliability, and adequate discriminate validity, evidenced by a weak positive correlation with the GCS-II. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the GSTRS-R is a reliable tool that may be useful for evaluating therapist fidelity to GST model, and assisting GST training and supervision. Initial validity was supported by a weak association with GCS-II, indicating that although associated with cohesiveness, the instrument also assesses factors specific to GST. Limitations are discussed.

Emotion Regulation in Schema Therapy and Dialectical Behavior Therapy.

Schema therapy (ST) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) have both shown to be effective treatment methods especially for borderline personality disorder. Both, ST and DBT, have their roots in cognitive behavioral therapy and aim at helping patient to deal with emotional dysregulation. However, there are major differences in the terminology, explanatory models and techniques used in the both methods. This article gives an overview of the major therapeutic techniques used in ST and DBT with respect to emotion regulation and systematically puts them in the context of James Gross' process model of emotion regulation. Similarities and differences of the two methods are highlighted and illustrated with a case example. A core difference of the two approaches is that DBT directly focusses on the acquisition of emotion regulation skills, whereas ST does seldom address emotion regulation directly. All DBT-modules (mindfulness, distress tolerance, emotion regulation, interpersonal effectiveness) are intended to improve emotion regulation skills and patients are encouraged to train these skills on a regular basis. DBT assumes that improved skills and skills use will result in better emotion regulation. In ST problems in emotion regulation are seen as a consequence of adverse early experiences (e.g., lack of safe attachment, childhood abuse or emotional neglect). These negative experiences have led to unprocessed psychological traumas and fear of emotions and result in attempts to avoid emotions and dysfunctional meta-cognitive schemas about the meaning of emotions. ST assumes that when these underlying problems are addressed, emotion regulation improves. Major ST techniques for trauma processing, emotional avoidance and dysregulation are limited reparenting, empathic confrontation and experiential techniques like chair dialogs and imagery rescripting.