Perspectives on Dialectical Behavior Therapy and Mentalization-Based Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: Same, Different, Complementary?

Current evidence suggests that individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are likely to benefit from specialized, or BPD-specific, treatments. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and mentalization-based treatment (MBT) are currently the most intensively researched BPD treatments. Reviewing the current research, this paper highlights similarities and differences between the two treatments, and discusses possible ways they could complement each other. As the effectiveness of specialized treatments for BPD in general has been determined with some certainty, research now tends towards individualized approaches, identifying predictors of optimal treatment response. However, it is still to be settled who might profit from a combination of or sequential treatment with DBT and MBT.

Mentalization-based treatment in groups for adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder: 3- and 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

Mentalization-based treatment in groups (MBT-G) has never been tested in adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a randomized controlled trial. The current study aimed to test the long-term effectiveness of MBT-G in an adolescent sample with BPD or BPD features (≥ 4 DSM-5 BPD criteria). Hundred and eleven patients with BPD (n = 106) or BPD features (n = 5) were randomized to either (1) a 1-year modified MBT-G program comprising three MBT introductory sessions, five individual case formulation sessions, 37 weekly MBT group sessions, and six MBT-Parent sessions, or (2) treatment as usual (TAU), defined as at least 12 individual monthly treatment sessions with follow-up assessments at 3 and 12 months post treatment. The primary outcome was the score on the Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children (BPFS-C), and secondary outcomes included clinician-rated BPD symptoms and global level of functioning as well as self-reported self-harm, depression, externalizing and internalizing symptoms, and caregiver reports. There were no statistically significant differences between MBT-G and TAU on the primary outcome measure or any of the secondary outcomes. Both groups showed improvement on the majority of clinical and social outcomes at both follow-up points, although remission rates were modest with just 35% in MBT-G and 39% in TAU 2 years after inclusion into the study. MBT-G was not superior to TAU in improving borderline features in adolescents. Although improvement was observed equally in both interventions over time, the patients continued to exhibit prominent BPD features, general psychopathology and decreased functioning in the follow-up period, which points to a need for more research and better understanding of effective components in early intervention programs. The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT02068326.

Burden and Treatment Satisfaction among Caregivers of Adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder.

Despite the fact that family involvement is encouraged in early interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD), there is a limited knowledge on the experience of caring for adolescents with BPD. This is an exploratory retrospective study nested within a randomized controlled trial that compared mentalization-based treatment (MBT) in groups to treatment as usual for adolescents with BPD. Caregivers received six MBT-Parents sessions or standard care over one year. Three months after end of treatment (EOT), 75 caregivers (35 in MBT, 40 in TAU) filled out the Burden Assessment Scale, and 71 (34 in MBT, 37 in TAU) the Family Satisfaction Survey. The adolescents filled out the Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children at baseline and after twelve months at EOT. We tested whether caregiver demographics, adolescents' severity of BPD, treatment and adolescents' dropout from treatment predicted levels of caregiver burden and satisfaction with treatment. The caregivers reported high levels of burden on the BAS (M = 40.3, SD = 12.2). Our study suggests that higher BPD severity at EOT among the adolescents predicted caregiver burden (p = .03), whereas higher baseline BPD severity predicted satisfaction with treatment (p = .04) and that biological mothers could be more burdened than other types of caregivers but also might be more satisfied with treatment. Treatment and adolescents' dropout from treatment were not related to caregiver burden or satisfaction with treatment. To help inform future research and to devise appropriate interventions for caregivers and adolescents with BPD, it is important to identify possible predictors of caregiver burden. The results of this initial exploratory study indicate that caregivers (and particularly biological mothers) of adolescents with more severe levels of BPD could be particularly vulnerable toward feelings of burden and therefore are in need of support.

A pesar del hecho de que se recomienda la participación familiar en las primeras intervenciones para el trastorno límite de la personalidad (TLP), se sabe muy poco sobre la experiencia de cuidar a adolescentes con TLP. El presente es un estudio retrospectivo exploratorio enmarcado en un ensayo controlado aleatorizado que compara el tratamiento basado en la mentalización (TBM) en grupos con el tratamiento habitual (TH) para adolescentes con TLP. Los cuidadores recibieron seis sesiones de TBM para padres o la atención normal durante un año. Tres meses después del final del tratamiento, 75 cuidadores (35 en TBM, 40 en TH) completaron la Escala de Evaluación del Agobio (Burden Assessment Scale), y 71 (34 en TBM, 37 en TH) la Encuesta de Satisfacción Familiar (Family Satisfaction Survey). Los adolescentes completaron la Escala de Características de la Personalidad Límite para Niños (Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children) en el momento basal y después de doce meses al final del tratamiento. Evaluamos si las características demográficas de los cuidadores, la intensidad del TLP de los adolescentes, el tratamiento y la deserción del tratamiento por parte de los adolescentes predijeron niveles de agobio en los cuidadores y de satisfacción con el tratamiento. Los cuidadores informaron niveles altos de agobio en la Escala de Evaluación del Agobio (M = 40.3, DT= 12.2). Nuestro estudio indica que una mayor intensidad del TLP al final del tratamiento entre los adolescentes predijo el agobio del cuidador (p = .03), mientras que una mayor intensidad del TLP en el momento basal predijo la satisfacción con el tratamiento (p = .04), y que las madres biológicas podrían estar más agobiadas que otros tipos de cuidadores, pero también podrían estar más satisfechas con el tratamiento. El tratamiento y la deserción del tratamiento por parte de los adolescentes no estuvieron relacionados con el agobio del cuidador ni con la satisfacción con el tratamiento. Con el fin de contribuir a ampliar futuras investigaciones y de idear intervenciones adecuadas para cuidadores y adolescentes con TLP, es importante reconocer posibles predictores del agobio del cuidador. Los resultados de este estudio exploratorio inicial indican que los cuidadores (y particularmente las madres biológicas) de los adolescentes con niveles más intensos de TLP podrían ser particularmente vulnerables hacia sentimientos de agobio y, por lo tanto, necesitan apoyo.

Psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders in adults.

BACKGROUND: Conversion and dissociative disorders are conditions where people experience unusual neurological symptoms or changes in awareness or identity. However, symptoms and clinical signs cannot be explained by a neurological disease or other medical condition. Instead, a psychological stressor or trauma is often present. The symptoms are real and can cause significant distress or problems with functioning in everyday life for the people experiencing them. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychosocial interventions of conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted database searches between 16 July and 16 August 2019. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders with standard care, wait list or other interventions (pharmaceutical, somatic or psychosocial).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected, quality assessed and extracted data from the identified studies. Two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard Cochrane methodology. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We assessed and downgraded the evidence according to the GRADE system for risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency and publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies (16 with parallel-group designs and one with a cross-over design), with 894 participants aged 18 to 80 years (female:male ratio 3:1).  The data were separated into 12 comparisons based on the different interventions and comparators. Studies were pooled into the same comparison when identical interventions and comparisons were evaluated. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded as a consequence of potential risk of bias, as many of the studies had unclear or inadequate allocation concealment. Further downgrading was performed due to imprecision, few participants and inconsistency. There were 12 comparisons for the primary outcome of reduction in physical signs. Inpatient paradoxical intention therapy compared with outpatient diazepam: inpatient paradoxical intention therapy did not reduce conversive symptoms compared with outpatient diazepam at the end of treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.28; 1 study, 30 participants; P = 0.12; very low-quality evidence). Inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis compared with inpatient treatment programme: inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis did not reduce severity of impairment compared with inpatient treatment programme at the end of treatment (MD -0.49 (negative value better), 95% CI -1.28 to 0.30; 1 study, 45 participants; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient hypnosis compared with wait list: outpatient hypnosis might reduce severity of impairment compared with wait list at the end of treatment (MD 2.10 (higher value better), 95% CI 1.34 to 2.86; 1 study, 49 participants; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care compared with routine clinical care: behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care might reduce the number of weekly seizures compared with routine clinical care alone at the end of treatment (MD -21.40 (negative value better), 95% CI -27.88 to -14.92; 1 study, 18 participants; P < 0.00001; very low-quality evidence). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) compared with standard medical care: CBT did not reduce monthly seizure frequency compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 6.19; 1 study, 16 participants; P = 0.53; very low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce physical signs compared to standard medical care at the end of treatment (MD -4.75 (negative value better), 95% CI -18.73 to 9.23; 1 study, 61 participants; P = 0.51; low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce seizure freedom compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 17.88; 1 trial, 16 participants; P = 0.41; very low-quality evidence). Psychoeducational follow-up programmes compared with treatment as usual (TAU): no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy inpatient programme compared with wait list: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy outpatient intervention compared with TAU: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Brief psychotherapeutic intervention (psychodynamic interpersonal treatment approach) compared with standard care: brief psychotherapeutic interventions did not reduce conversion symptoms compared to standard care at end of treatment (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.00; 1 study, 19 participants; P = 0.14; very low-quality evidence). CBT plus adjunctive physical activity (APA) compared with CBT alone: CBT plus APA did not reduce overall physical impacts compared to CBT alone at end of treatment (MD 5.60 (negative value better), 95% CI -15.48 to 26.68; 1 study, 21 participants; P = 0.60; very low-quality evidence). Hypnosis compared to diazepam: hypnosis did not reduce symptoms compared to diazepam at end of treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; 1 study, 40 participants; P = 0.22; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient motivational interviewing (MI) and mindfulness-based psychotherapy compared with psychotherapy alone: psychotherapy preceded by MI might decrease seizure frequency compared with psychotherapy alone at end of treatment (MD 41.40 (negative value better), 95% CI 4.92 to 77.88; 1 study, 54 participants; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence). The effect on the secondary outcomes was reported in 16/17  studies. None of the studies reported results on adverse effects. In the studies reporting on level of functioning and quality of life at end of treatment the effects ranged from small to no effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis and reporting of single studies suggest there is lack of evidence regarding the effects of any psychosocial intervention on conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about potential benefits or harms from the included studies.

Mentalization-based treatment in groups for adolescents with borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) typically onsets in adolescence and predicts later functional disability in adulthood. Highly structured evidence-based psychotherapeutic programs, including mentalization-based treatment (MBT), are first choice treatment. The efficacy of MBT for BPD has mainly been tested with adults, and no RCT has examined the effectiveness of MBT in groups (MBT-G) for adolescent BPD. METHOD: A total of 112 adolescents (111 females) with BPD (106) or BPD symptoms ≥4 DSM-5 criteria (5) referred to child and adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics were randomized to a 1-year MBT-G, consisting of three introductory, psychoeducative sessions, 37 weekly group sessions, five individual case formulation sessions, and six group sessions for caregivers, or treatment as usual (TAU) with at least 12 monthly individual sessions. The primary outcome was the score on the borderline personality features scale for children (BPFS-C); secondary outcomes included self-harm, depression, externalizing and internalizing symptoms (all self-report), caregiver reports, social functioning, and borderline symptoms rated by blinded clinicians. Outcome assessments were made at baseline, after 10, 20, and 30 weeks, and at end of treatment (EOT). The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT02068326. RESULTS: At EOT, the primary outcome was 71.3 (SD = 15.0) in the MBT-G group and 71.3 (SD = 15.2) in the TAU group (adjusted mean difference 0.4 BPFS-C units in favor of MBT-G, 95% confidence interval -6.3 to 7.1, p = .91). No significant group differences were found in the secondary outcomes. 29% in both groups remitted. 29% of the MBT group completed less than half of the sessions compared with 7% of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There is no indication for superiority of either therapy method. The low remission rate points to the importance of continued research into early intervention. Specifically, retention problems need to be addressed.