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.

Unmet care needs of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives: multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The care needs of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives change throughout the disease trajectory. This study focused on the care-related problems and needs of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives. This was done from the perspective of centres for information and support. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from the eQuiPe study: an observational cohort study in which 40 Dutch hospitals participated. All adult patients with a diagnosis of a metastasised tumour and their relatives were eligible. Measures included information on the patients' and relatives' care problems and needs, assessed by the short version of the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care questionnaire. Socioeconomic demographics were also collected. RESULTS: 1103 patients with advanced cancer and 831 relatives were included. Both patients (M=60.3, SD=29.0) and relatives (M=59.2, SD=26.6) experienced most problems in the domain of 'psychological issues'. Both patients (M=14.0, SD=24.2) and relatives (M=17.7, SD=25.7) most frequently reported unmet needs within this domain. The most often reported unmet need by patients was 'worrying about the future of my loved ones' (22.0%); for relatives this was 'fear for physical suffering of the patient' (32.8%). There was no clear relationship between socioeconomic demographics and the experienced unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: The most often mentioned unmet needs consisted of fears and worries, followed by a broad range of topics within multiple domains. Centres for information and support may play a role in reducing the unmet needs of (potential) visitors as these centres provide support on a broad range of topics.

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).

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.

Identifying value-based quality indicators for general hospital psychiatry.

OBJECTIVE: To define generic quality indicators for general hospital psychiatry from the perspectives of patients, professionals (physicians, nurses, and managers), and payers (health insurance companies). METHODS: Quality variables were identified by reviewing the relevant literature. A working. group consisting of patients', professionals' and payers' representatives was mandated by their respective umbrella organizations. The working group prioritized the quality variables that were identified. Core values were defined and subsequently linked to preliminary quality indicators. These were tested for feasibility in ten hospitals in a four-week period. Stakeholder consultation took place by means of two invitational conferences and two written commentary rounds. RESULTS: Forty-one quality variables were identified from the literature. After prioritization, seven core values were defined and translated to 22 preliminary indicators. Overall, the feasibility study showed high relevance scores and good implementability of the preliminary quality indicators. A final set of twenty-two quality indicators (17 structure, 3 process and 2 outcome indicators) was then established using a consensus-based approach. CONCLUSION: Consensus on a quality framework for general hospital psychiatry was built by incorporating the perspectives of relevant stakeholders. Results of the feasibility study suggest broad support and good implementability of the final quality indicators. Structural indicators were broadly defined, and process and outcome indicators are generic to facilitate quality measurement across settings. The quality indicator set can now be used to facilitate quality and outcome assessment, stimulate standardization of services, and help demonstrate (cost-) effectiveness.

Day hospital mentalization-based treatment v. specialist treatment as usual in patients with borderline personality disorder: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Day hospital mentalization-based treatment (MBT-DH) is a promising treatment for borderline personality disorder (BPD) but its evidence base is still limited. This multi-site randomized trial compared the efficacy of MBT-DH delivered by a newly set-up service v. specialist treatment as usual (S-TAU) tailored to the individual needs of patients, and offered by a well-established treatment service. METHODS: Two mental healthcare institutes in The Netherlands participated in the study. Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD and had a score of ⩾20 on the borderline personality disorder severity index (BPDSI) were randomly allocated to MBT-DH (N = 54) or S-TAU (N = 41). The primary outcome variable was the total score on the BPDSI. Secondary outcome variables included symptom severity, quality of life, and interpersonal functioning. Data were collected at baseline and every 6 months until 18-month follow-up, and were analyzed using multilevel analyses based on intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: Both treatments were associated with significant improvements in all outcome variables. MBT-DH was not superior to S-TAU on any outcome variable. MBT-DH was associated with higher acceptability in BPD patients compared v. S-TAU, reflected in significantly higher early drop-out rates in S-TAU (34%) v. MBT-DH (9%). CONCLUSIONS: MBT-DH delivered by a newly set-up service is as effective as specialist TAU in The Netherlands in the treatment of BPD at 18-month follow-up. Further research is needed to investigate treatment outcomes in the longer term and the cost-effectiveness of these treatments.

The burden of disease in patients eligible for mentalization-based treatment (MBT): quality of life and costs.

BACKGROUND: Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT) is a promising, though expensive treatment for severely ill patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). A high burden of disease in terms of quality of life (QoL) and life years lost can be a reason to prioritize mental health interventions, and specifically for BPD patients. Moreover, when the societal costs of the illness are high, spending resources on high treatment costs would be more easily legitimized. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to calculate the burden of disease of BPD patients eligible for MBT. METHODS: The 403 patients included in this study were recruited from two mental health care institutes in the Netherlands. All patients were eligible for MBT. Burden of disease consisted of QoL, measured with the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L, and costs, calculated using the Trimbos and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Questionnaire for Costs Associated with Psychiatric Illness. RESULTS: The mean QoL index score was .48. The mean total costs in the year prior to treatment were €16,879 per patient, of which 21 % consisted of productivity costs. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of disease in BPD patients eligible for MBT is high, which makes it more likely that society is willing to invest in treatment for these patients. However, this finding should not be interpreted as a license to unlimitedly use resources to reimburse treatment for severe BPD patients, as these findings do not provide any information on the effectiveness of MBT or other available treatment programs for BPD. The effectiveness of available treatments should be evident by studies on the effectiveness of the treatment itself and by comparing the effectiveness of these treatments to treatment as usual and to other treatment options for BPD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The data on this paper came from two trials: NTR2175 and NTR2292 .

Standardised mindfulness-based interventions in healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based therapies are being used in a wide range of common chronic conditions in both treatment and prevention despite lack of consensus about their effectiveness in different patient categories. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness MBSR and MBCT in different patient categories. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of RCTs, using the standardized MBSR or MBCT programs. We used PRISMA guidelines to assess the quality of the included reviews and performed a random effects meta-analysis with main outcome measure Cohen's d. All types of participants were considered. RESULTS: The search produced 187 reviews: 23 were included, covering 115 unique RCTs and 8,683 unique individuals with various conditions. Compared to wait list control and compared to treatment as usual, MBSR and MBCT significantly improved depressive symptoms (d=0.37; 95%CI 0.28 to 0.45, based on 5 reviews, N=2814), anxiety (d=0.49; 95%CI 0.37 to 0.61, based on 4 reviews, N=2525), stress (d=0.51; 95%CI 0.36 to 0.67, based on 2 reviews, N=1570), quality of life (d=0.39; 95%CI 0.08 to 0.70, based on 2 reviews, N=511) and physical functioning (d=0.27; 95%CI 0.12 to 0.42, based on 3 reviews, N=1015). Limitations include heterogeneity within patient categories, risk of publication bias and limited long-term follow-up in several studies. CONCLUSION: The evidence supports the use of MBSR and MBCT to alleviate symptoms, both mental and physical, in the adjunct treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, depression, anxiety disorders and in prevention in healthy adults and children.

Effectiveness of Day Hospital Mentalization-Based Treatment for Patients with Severe Borderline Personality Disorder: A Matched Control Study.

The present study extends the body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of day hospital Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT) by documenting the treatment outcome of a highly inclusive group of severe borderline personality disorder (BPD) patients, benchmarked by a carefully matched group who received other specialized psychotherapeutic treatments (OPT). Structured diagnostic interviews were conducted to assess diagnostic status at baseline. Baseline, 18-month treatment outcome and 36-month treatment outcome (after the maintenance phase) on psychiatric symptoms (Brief Symptom Inventory) and personality functioning (118-item Severity Indices of Personality Problems) were available for 29 BPD patients assigned to MBT, and an initial set of 175 BPD patients assigned to OPT. Propensity scores were used to determine the best matches for the MBT patients within the larger OPT group, yielding 29 MBT and 29 OPT patients for direct comparison. Treatment outcome was analysed using multilevel modelling. Pre to post effect sizes were consistently (very) large for MBT, with a Cohen's d of -1.06 and -1.42 for 18 and 36 months, respectively, for the reduction in psychiatric symptoms, and ds ranging from 0.81 to 2.08 for improvement in domains of personality functioning. OPT also yielded improvement across domains but generally of moderate magnitude. In conclusion, the present matched control study, executed by an independent research institute outside the UK, demonstrated the effectiveness of day hospital MBT in a highly inclusive and severe group of BPD patients, beyond the benchmark provided by a mix of specialized psychotherapy programmes. Interpretation of the (large) between condition effects warrants cautionary caveats given the non-randomized design, as well as variation in treatment dosages.

Day hospital Mentalization-based treatment versus intensive outpatient Mentalization-based treatment for patients with severe borderline personality disorder: protocol of a multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with a high socioeconomic burden. Although a number of evidence-based treatments for BPD are currently available, they are not widely disseminated; furthermore, there is a need for more research concerning their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Such knowledge promises to lead to more efficient use of resources, which will facilitate the effective dissemination of these costly treatments. This study focuses on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT), a manualized treatment for patients with BPD. Studies to date have either investigated MBT in a day hospitalization setting (MBT-DH) or MBT offered in an intensive outpatient setting (MBT-IOP). No trial has compared the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these MBT programmes. As both interventions differ considerably in terms of intensity of treatment, and thus potentially in terms of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, there is a need for comparative trials. This study therefore sets out to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of MBT-DH versus MBT-IOP in patients with BPD. A secondary aim is to investigate the association between baseline measures and outcome, which might improve treatment selection and thus optimize efficacy and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing MBT-DH versus MBT-IOP in severe BPD patients. Patients are screened for BPD using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders, and are assessed before randomization, at the start of treatment and 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. Patients who refuse to participate will be offered care as usual in the same treatment centre. The primary outcome measure is symptom severity as measured by the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures include parasuicidal behaviour, depression, substance use, social, interpersonal, and personality functioning, attachment, mentalizing capacities, and quality of life. All analyses will be conducted based on the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness will be calculated based on costs per quality-adjusted life-year. DISCUSSION: This multisite randomized trial will provide data to refine criteria for treatment selection for severe BPD patients and promises to optimize (cost-)effectiveness of the treatment of BPD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2292 . Registered 16 April 2010.

Day Hospital Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT-DH) versus treatment as usual in the treatment of severe borderline personality disorder: protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe borderline personality disorder is associated with a very high psychosocial and economic burden. Current treatment guidelines suggest that several manualized treatments, including day hospital Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT-DH), are effective in these patients. However, only two randomized controlled trials have compared manualized MBT-DH with treatment as usual. Given the relative paucity of data supporting the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of MBT-DH, the possible influence of researcher allegiance in one of the trials, and potential problems with the generalization of findings to mental health systems in other countries, this multi-site randomized trial aims to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of manualized MBT-DH compared to manualized specialist treatment as usual in The Netherlands. METHODS/DESIGN: The trial is being conducted at two sites in The Netherlands. Patients with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and a score of ≥ 20 on the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index were randomly allocated to MBT-DH or treatment as usual. The MBT-DH program consists of a maximum of 18 months' intensive treatment, followed by a maximum of 18 months of maintenance therapy. Specialist treatment as usual is provided by the City Crisis Service in Amsterdam, a service that specializes in treating patients with personality disorders, offering manualized, non-MBT interventions including family interventions, Linehan training, social skills training, and pharmacotherapy, without a maximum time limit. Patients are assessed at baseline and subsequently every 6 months up to 36 months after the start of treatment. The primary outcome measure is the frequency and severity of manifestations of borderline personality disorder as assessed by the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index. Secondary outcome measures include parasuicidal behaviour, symptomatic distress, social and interpersonal functioning, personality functioning, attachment, capacity for mentalizing and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness is assessed in terms of the cost per quality-adjusted life year. Outcomes will be analyzed using multilevel analyses based on intention-to-treat principles. DISCUSSION: Severe borderline personality disorder is a serious psychological disorder that is associated with high burden. This multi-site randomized trial will provide further data concerning the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of MBT-DH for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2175.

Feasibility of mentalization-based treatment for adolescents with borderline symptoms: a pilot study.

Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) is an evidence-based treatment for adults suffering from borderline personality disorder. Different adaptations of MBT for adolescents have been described, but almost none of these have been systematically evaluated so far. This article presents pilot data from a feasibility study of an adaptation of inpatient MBT for adolescents with borderline symptoms (MBT-A). Preliminary outcome results were examined in a pilot study including 11 female adolescents (aged 14-18 years) in a mental health care center in the Netherlands. Maximum treatment duration was 12 months and patients were assessed at start and at 12 months after start of treatment. Outcome measures included symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory), personality functioning (Severity Indices of Personality Problems), and quality of life (EuroQol). Results showed significant decreases in symptoms, and improvements in personality functioning and quality of life at 12 months after start of treatment. Effect sizes (d) ranged from .58 to 1.46, indicating medium to large effects. In total, 91% of the adolescents showed reliable change on the BSI, and 18% also moved to the functional range on the BSI. The results of this feasibility study are promising and encourage further research concerning the efficacy of MBT in adolescents with borderline symptoms, although some problems with implementation suggest that an outpatient variant of MBT for adolescents might be as effective while at the same time reducing potential iatrogenic effects of inpatient treatment for this age group.

Treatment outcome of 18-month, day hospital mentalization-based treatment (MBT) in patients with severe borderline personality disorder in the Netherlands.

Psychoanalytically oriented day hospital therapy, later manualized and named mentalization-based treatment (MBT), has proven to be a (cost-) effective treatment for patients with severe borderline personality disorder and a high degree of psychiatric comorbidity (BPD) in the United Kingdom (UK). As to yet it has not been shown whether manualized day hospital MBT would yield similar results when conducted by an independent institute outside the UK. We investigated the applicability and treatment outcome of 18-month, manualized day hospital MBT in the Netherlands by means of a prospective cohort study with 45 Dutch patients with severe BPD and a high degree of comorbid Axis I and Axis II disorders. Outcomes were assessed each six months. Symptom distress, social and interpersonal functioning, and personality pathology and functioning all improved significantly, with effect sizes between 0.7 and 1.7. Suicide attempts, acts of self-harm, and care consumption were also significantly reduced. The results indicate that MBT can effectively be implemented in an independent treatment institute outside the UK. This study also supports the clinical effectiveness of manualized day hospital MBT in patients with severe BPD and a high degree of psychiatric comorbidity.

Equity in health care prioritisation: an empirical inquiry into social value.

The value of QALY gains for different patients may be recalculated using equity weights, but it is unclear which interpretation of equity should be used: severity of illness, fair innings or proportional shortfall. We set up an experiment to analyze which of these equity concepts best reflects people's distributional preferences. Sixty respondents assigned a priority rank to the treatment of 10 conditions using the paired comparison technique. We described these real-life conditions by their actual QALY profiles, i.e. in terms of age, disease free period, duration of disease, quality of life, and life years lost. Next we determined the priority rank order of the 10 conditions by the three equity concepts, using the weights that each equity concept attributes to the different units of the QALY profile describing the 10 conditions. To explore the social interpretation of equity, we compared the observed and theoretical rank orderings using Spearman correlations. All correlations were significant at a 0.05 level. Fair innings best predicted the observed rank order of the 10 conditions (r=0.95). Weaker correlations were found for proportional shortfall (r=0.82) and severity of illness (r=-0.65). This result calls attention to health policy, because actual health care decisions often reflect concerns of severity of illness. This raises the question if health care decision makers evaluate the claims of different patients for health care by appropriate criteria.