ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Although treatments of patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) were historically associated with relatively high dropout rates, dropout rates in contemporary evidence-based treatments for BPD are typically substantially lower. However, only a few studies have investigated dropout rates in mentalization-based treatment (MBT), and even fewer have investigated predictors of dropout in this type of treatment. In this study, we investigated dropout rates in two types of MBT (day hospital MBT [MBT-DH] and intensive outpatient MBT [MBT-IOP]) using data from a recent multicenter randomized clinical trial. Given the central importance of attachment considerations in MBT, we also investigated the relationship between dropout in these two treatments and attachment dimensions. DESIGN: Within a multicenter randomized clinical trial, 114 BPD patients were randomized to MBT-DH (n = 70) or MBT-IOP (n = 44). METHODS: Dropout in both types of MBT was investigated using descriptive analyses, and its association with attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, as measured by the Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire at baseline, was investigated using regression analyses. RESULTS: Dropout rates were relatively low (10.5% across both types of MBT) and did not significantly differ between groups (11.4% in MBT-DH, 9.1% in MBT-IOP). Attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety did not impact dropout, nor did their interaction or the interaction with the type of MBT. CONCLUSIONS: Low dropout rates in both types of MBT indicate a high level of engagement of patients in both programmes. Attachment dimensions were not associated with dropout, consistent with the principle that MBT is tailored to each individual's needs. More research is needed, however, to investigate to what extent attachment is a dynamic context-bound adaptive process rather than a static personality feature.
ABSTRACT
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).