Efficacy of mentalization-based therapy in treating self-harm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) and its adapted version for adolescents (MBT-A) are repeatedly highlighted as promising treatments for reducing self-harm, particularly in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite the availability of publications providing evidence of their efficacy in reducing self-harm, recent meta-analyses have yielded mixed results. To inform best-practice clinical decision-making, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We aimed to disentangle findings for both adolescents and adults on the efficacy of MBT(-A) in reducing self-harm (primary outcome) and symptoms of BPD and depression (secondary outcomes). METHODS: Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Review Database were searched for eligible studies published until September 2022. In total, 14 studies were identified, comprising 612 participants from nine MBT studies (six pre-post, three RCTs) and five MBT-A studies (two pre-post, three RCTs). Aggregated effect sizes were estimated using random-effects models. Meta-regressions were conducted to assess the effect of moderator variables (treatment duration, drop-out rates, and age) on effect sizes. RESULTS: Overall, both MBT and MBT-A demonstrated promising effects in reducing self-harm (g = -0.82, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.50), borderline personality disorder (g = -1.08, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.77), and depression (g = -1.1, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.68) symptoms. However, when compared to control interventions (TAU, SCM), MBT(-A) did not prove to be more efficacious, with the exception of MBT showing superior effects on BPD symptoms in adults (g = -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24). CONCLUSION: Although the pre-post evaluations seem promising, this analysis, including RCTs, showed no superiority of MBT(-A) to control conditions, so that prioritizing the application of MBT (-A) for the treatment of self-harm is not supported. Possible explanations and further implications are discussed.

Mental Health of Transgender Youth: A Comparison of Assigned Female at Birth and Assigned Male at Birth Individuals.

Gender dysphoric adolescents report a gender identity which is incongruent with their assigned sex at birth, whereby the experienced incongruence is accompanied by clinically relevant distress. The aim of the study was to assess and compare the mental health of transgender youth by assigned sex at birth. A total of n = 49 adolescents (n = 29 assigned females at birth, n = 20 assigned male at birth) aged 12 to 18 years with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria according to DSM-5 were included in the study. The adolescents underwent a psychological assessment in a child and adolescent psychiatry outpatient department prior to starting gender-affirming medical treatment, completing relevant mental health questionnaires. Although no differences were found in psychiatric disorders, more externalizing problems above the clinical threshold were reported by parents in assigned female at birth (AFAB) adolescents. On the other hand, internalizing problems, both in general and within the clinical range, were found to be more prevalent in assigned male at birth (AMAB) adolescents, as indicated by self-report. Our results suggest that a comprehensive assessment of mental health in gender dysphoric adolescents is crucial for understanding the diverse range of challenges they may face and tailoring appropriate interventions to address their specific needs.