A borderline focused Reflective Functioning measure - Interrater reliability of the Mentalization Breakdown Interview.

OBJECTIVE: Mentalizing difficulties can be considered the core psychopathology of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Typical failures of mentalizing are targets in therapy for BPD. They are related to severe distress, relational problems, self-destructive behaviors, violence, or substance misuse. A major obstacle in BPD treatment research is the lack of suitable and easily administrated methods to assess mentalizing ability during treatment. The Mentalization Breakdown Interview (MBI) is a new method for capturing episodic mentalizing difficulties occurring in close relationships. Interviews are videotaped and scored in accordance with the Reflective Functioning Scale (MBI-RF). In this way the patients' ability to retrospectively reflect over such episodes are evaluated. This study investigates the interrater reliability of MBI-RF. METHODS: The study includes videotapes of MBIs from 32 patients with BPD in an outpatient clinic specialized on mentalization-based treatment (MBT). The MBIs were performed by MBT therapists. Three certified raters scored MBI-RF. RESULTS: The interrater reliability was good for MBI-RF. CONCLUSIONS: The MBI is promising as a BPD-focused method for the assessment of Reflective Functioning.

Social Cognition Capacities as Predictors of Outcome in Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT).

BACKGROUND: Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) is an evidence-based treatment for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Differences in treatment outcomes related to specific capacity of social cognition need further attention. This study aimed to investigate social cognition as a predictor of outcome. METHOD: The study included 31 BPD patients who completed a test of social cognition (Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition, MASC) before outpatient MBT. The MASC-scores indicated a person's theory of mind (ToM) and different error-types. During treatment repeated self-reports of alliance and clinical outcomes (symptoms, interpersonal problems, social functioning) were applied. Longitudinal analyses were based on Linear Mixed Models (n = 24). RESULTS: The most frequent error-type was excessive ToM (hypermentalizing). Higher levels of excessive ToM were associated with greater improvement of alliance over time and good clinical outcomes. Insufficient ToM errors and low levels of accurate cognitive ToM responses were both associated with poorer improvement over time. The subgroup with frequent insufficient ToM errors had a larger total number of ToM errors. Insufficient ToM errors were associated with more childhood trauma, comorbid avoidant PD traits and/or PTSD, extensive prior treatment, and/or treatment irregularity. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates considerable variation of social cognitive capacity among BPD patients and good outcomes for patients with mainly ToM errors of hypermentalizing. It also indicates that poorly responding patients may represent a cohort with more complex problems of social cognition and insufficient mentalizing.

Mentalization-based treatment or psychodynamic treatment programmes for patients with borderline personality disorder - the impact of clinical severity.

OBJECTIVES: Mentalization-based treatment (MBT), originally designed for patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), may be particularly indicated for severe conditions. However, there is limited documentation of how increasing severity of personality disorder (PD) effect outcomes of highly specialized treatments. This study aimed to investigate associations between clinical severity and outcomes for patients in MBT as compared to a psychodynamic group-based treatment programme (PDT). DESIGN: A naturalistic, longitudinal, comparison study. METHODS: The sample included 345 patients with BPD (PDTn = 281, MBTn = 64). The number of diagnosed PDs, PD criteria, and symptom disorders were chosen as baseline indicators of clinical severity. Clinical outcomes (global functioning, symptom distress, interpersonal problems) were repeatedly assessed over three years. Therapists' fidelity to MBT was satisfactory. Linear mixed models were the applied statistics. RESULTS: In PDT, greater clinical severity was associated with poorer improvement rates. Clinical severity was not associated with significant differences in outcomes for patients in MBT. Differences in outcomes for patients in MBT and PDT increased significantly with higher severity of disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Supporting previous research, this study indicates that clinical benefits associated with MBT also apply for BPD patients with severe conditions. The results also suggest that increasing severity was a challenge in PDT. PRACTITIONER POINTS: MBT may be particularly beneficial for severely disordered BPD patients Differences between MBT and PDT were less pronounced in moderately disordered BPD patients.

Changing from a traditional psychodynamic treatment programme to mentalization-based treatment for patients with borderline personality disorder--does it make a difference?

OBJECTIVES: Few studies outside United Kingdom have documented effects of mentalization-based treatment (MBT) for patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study aimed to investigate outcomes for BPD patients treated in an MBT programme in a Norwegian specialist treatment unit and compare benefits of the implemented MBT with the unit's former psychodynamic treatment programme. DESIGN: A naturalistic, longitudinal, comparison of treatment effects for BPD patients before and after transition to MBT. METHODS: The sample consisted of 345 BPD patients treated in the period 1993-2013. Before 2008, patients were admitted to a psychodynamic treatment programme (n = 281), after 2008 patients received MBT (n = 64). Symptom distress, interpersonal problems, and global functioning were assessed repeatedly throughout the treatment. Suicidal/self-harming acts, hospital admissions, medication, and occupational status were assessed at the start and end of treatment. Therapists' competence and adherence to MBT was rated and found satisfactory. The statistical method for longitudinal analyses was mixed models. RESULTS: BPD patients in MBT and in the former psychodynamic treatment programme had comparable baseline severity and impairments of functioning. BPD patients in MBT had a remarkably low drop-out rate (2%), significantly lower than the former treatment. Improvements of symptom distress, interpersonal, global and occupational functioning were significantly greater for MBT patients. Large reductions in suicidal/self-harming acts, hospital admissions, and use of medication were evident in the course of both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the effectiveness of MBT for BPD patients and indicates greater clinical benefits than in traditional psychodynamic treatment programmes. PRACTITIONER POINTS: MBT is an effective treatment for patients with BPD. MBT can successfully be implemented in therapeutic settings outside United Kingdom and may be more beneficial than psychodynamic treatment programmes for BPD patients.

The MBT Adherence and Competence Scale (MBT-ACS): development, structure and reliability.

The properties of the 17-item Mentalization-Based Treatment Adherence and Competence Scale (MBT-ACS) were investigated in a reliability study in which 18 psychotherapy sessions, comprising two sessions by nine different therapists, were rated by seven different raters. The overall reliabilities for adherence and competence for seven raters were high, .84 and .88 respectively. The level of reliability declined by number of raters but was still acceptable for two raters (.60 and .68). The reliabilities for the various items differed. The MBT-ACS was found to be an appropriate rating measure for treatment fidelity and useful for the purposes of quality control and supervision. The reliability may be enhanced by redefining some items and reducing their numbers.