One-Year Follow-Up: Schema Therapy for Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder and Comorbid Alcohol Use Disorder.

This article describes the 1-year follow-up of a study into the effectiveness of Schema Therapy (ST) for borderline personality disorder (BPD) and comorbid alcohol use disorder (AUD). In the original study, 20 of these patients participated in a multiple baseline case series design study. The results of the original study were promising (a significant decrease of BPD and AUD symptoms). The present study is aimed at examining the longer term benefits of ST for BPD and comorbid AUD. One year after the cessation of the investigational therapy, 17 of the original participants agreed to participate in this follow-up study. T- or Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed to compare 1-year follow-up to start of therapy (baseline). The results suggest that the main therapeutic improvements were generally preserved at 1-year follow-up. These findings add to the idea that integrated ST for BPD and comorbid AUD might be effective, also in the long term. A randomized clinical trial is indicated to substantiate this idea.

Automaticity: schema modes in addiction.

Automaticity is a hallmark of substance use disorder. In Schema Therapy (an evidence-based form of psychotherapy, that has also been applied to substance use disorders), automaticity appears to be a relevant variable. However, the role of automaticity in Schema Therapy has never been made explicit. In the present article, we investigate the role of automaticity in schema modes and its role in different phases in Schema Therapy for substance use disorders. In performing this investigation, we facilitate a better understanding of the working mechanisms of Schema Therapy, and, vice versa, suggest an alternative understanding of automaticity in substance use disorders. We suggest that the automatic use of substances is way of coping with schemas and, therefore, is the consequence of schema mode activity. In the article, four characteristics of automaticity (unconscious, uncontrollable/uncontrolled, efficient, fast) are translated to schema modes. Subsequently, a Schema Therapy case of a patient suffering from an alcohol use disorder and a narcissistic personality disorder is discussed, focusing on the four facets of automaticity. Last, implications for theory, clinical practice and future research are discussed.

Schema therapy for patients with borderline personality disorder and comorbid alcohol dependence: A multiple-baseline case series design study.

This study tested the effectiveness of schema therapy (ST) for borderline personality disorder (BPD) and comorbid alcohol dependence (AD). Twenty patients participated in a case series study with multiple baselines. The baseline phase consisted of treatment as usual. It was followed by a case conceptualization phase, an experiential techniques phase and a behavioural change phase. Patients showed a significant decrease in BPD and AD symptoms; change was mainly accomplished in the experiential techniques phase, with medium to large effect sizes. Three months after termination of therapy, 68% of the patients had remitted from BPD, and the number of drinking days decreased clearly. This study shows that, although treatment is challenging in this group of patients, meaningful change can be obtained in patients with BPD and AD using ST.

Towards optimal treatment selection for borderline personality disorder patients (BOOTS): a study protocol for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing schema therapy and dialectical behavior therapy.

BACKGROUND: Specialized evidence-based treatments have been developed and evaluated for borderline personality disorder (BPD), including Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Schema Therapy (ST). Individual differences in treatment response to both ST and DBT have been observed across studies, but the factors driving these differences are largely unknown. Understanding which treatment works best for whom and why remain central issues in psychotherapy research. The aim of the present study is to improve treatment response of DBT and ST for BPD patients by a) identifying patient characteristics that predict (differential) treatment response (i.e., treatment selection) and b) understanding how both treatments lead to change (i.e., mechanisms of change). Moreover, the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT and ST will be evaluated. METHODS: The BOOTS trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in a routine clinical setting in several outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 200 participants, to be randomized to DBT or ST. Patients receive a combined program of individual and group sessions for a maximum duration of 25 months. Data are collected at baseline until three-year follow-up. Candidate predictors of (differential) treatment response have been selected based on the literature, a patient representative of the Borderline Foundation of the Netherlands, and semi-structured interviews among 18 expert clinicians. In addition, BPD-treatment-specific (ST: beliefs and schema modes; DBT: emotion regulation and skills use), BPD-treatment-generic (therapeutic environment characterized by genuineness, safety, and equality), and non-specific (attachment and therapeutic alliance) mechanisms of change are assessed. The primary outcome measure is change in BPD manifestations. Secondary outcome measures include functioning, additional self-reported symptoms, and well-being. DISCUSSION: The current study contributes to the optimization of treatments for BPD patients by extending our knowledge on "Which treatment - DBT or ST - works the best for which BPD patient, and why?", which is likely to yield important benefits for both BPD patients (e.g., prevention of overtreatment and potential harm of treatments) and society (e.g., increased economic productivity of patients and efficient use of treatments). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7699 , registered 25/04/2019 - retrospectively registered.

Borderline Personality Disorder With Versus Without Alcohol Use Disorder: Comparing Impulsivity and Schema Modes.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) are highly comorbid. In the present study, an attempt was made to understand the differences between BPD and BPD with comorbid SUD (BPD + alcohol use disorder [AUD]), by studying impulsivity and schema modes (i.e., maladaptive moment-to-moment emotional states and coping responses). BPD patients, BPD+AUD patients, and nonpatients (NP) were compared regarding behavioral impulsivity (motor impulsivity, risk taking, delay discounting), and schema modes. The two patient groups displayed greater delay discounting than the NP group. Further, BPD and BPD+AUD groups were different from the NP group regarding all schema modes investigated. However, no differences were found on any of the dependent variables between the two patient groups. It is suggested that although BPD patients are in general more impulsive and have more maladaptive moment-to-moment emotional states and coping responses, BPD patients with and without AUD seem not to be different in this respect.

Schema Modes and Personality Disorder Symptoms in Alcohol-Dependent and Cocaine-Dependent Patients.

Substance use disorders (SUD) and personality disorders co-occur frequently. This relationship might be understood by studying schema modes (a key concept in Schema therapy), which explain the dysfunctions characterizing personality disorder patients. In the present study, we compared the schema modes and personality disorder symptoms between alcohol-dependent patients, cocaine-dependent patients and healthy controls. We found indications that specific schema modes are specific for SUD patients. However, no differences between specific subtypes of SUD patients (alcohol- vs. cocaine-dependent patients) could be found regarding schema modes. Further, it is suggested that borderline personality disorder symptoms are highly relevant for SUD patients. A first step is made in understanding the relationship between schema modes and SUD, which may contribute to the understanding of the problematic behaviour seen in patients with personality disorders and SUD (and may possibly contribute to the improvement of the treatment of this group of patients).

Cognitive Inflexibility in Gamblers is Primarily Present in Reward-Related Decision Making.

One hallmark of gambling disorder (GD) is the observation that gamblers have problems stopping their gambling behavior once it is initiated. On a neuropsychological level, it has been hypothesized that this is the result of a cognitive inflexibility. The present study investigated cognitive inflexibility in patients with GD using a task involving cognitive inflexibility with a reward element (i.e., reversal learning) and a task measuring general cognitive inflexibility without such a component (i.e., response perseveration). For this purpose, scores of a reward-based reversal learning task (probabilistic reversal learning task) and the Wisconsin card sorting task were compared between a group of treatment seeking patients with GD and a gender and age matched control group. The results show that pathological gamblers have impaired performance on the neurocognitive task measuring reward-based cognitive inflexibility. However, no difference between the groups is observed regarding non-reward-based cognitive inflexibility. This suggests that cognitive inflexibility in GD is the result of an aberrant reward-based learning, and not based on a more general problem with cognitive flexibility. The pattern of observed problems is suggestive of a dysfunction of the orbitofrontal cortex, the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, and the ventral regions of the striatum in gamblers. Relevance for the neurocognition of problematic gambling is discussed.

Rash impulsiveness and reward sensitivity as predictors of treatment outcome in male substance dependent patients.

Recent theories hypothesize that the impulsivity observed in addictive behaviors is a two-factor construct, consisting of Rash Impulsiveness and Reward Sensitivity. There is some evidence for this distinction, but it is unknown what the clinical relevance of this distinction is. The present study examines the predictive value of the two-factor model regarding drop-out from treatment and relapse into substance use in a clinical population of male substance dependent patients. Both behavioral and self-report measures of Rash Impulsiveness and Reward Sensitivity were measured during treatment while substance use relapse was measured after 90days. Results indicate that treatment drop-out could be predicted by a behavioral index of Reward Sensitivity (Card Playing Task); self-reported Rash Impulsiveness only approached significance as predictor drop-out. In contrast, relapse could not be predicted in the present study. These findings might have implications for the early identification and treatment of patients at risk of treatment drop-out.

The concepts of rash impulsiveness and reward sensitivity in substance use disorders.

According to recent theories of addiction, the commonly used term impulsivity comprises two factors: rash impulsiveness and reward sensitivity. The present study addresses the relevance and generalizability of this two-factor model in a clinical sample of substance use disorder patients. This was examined by examining both internal and external validity. In addition, a comparison was made between self-reported and behavioral measures reflecting reward sensitivity and rash impulsiveness. Results provide evidence for the existence of the two hypothesized impulsivity factors in a clinical sample of substance dependent patients. Meaningful relationships between the model and drug use characteristics have been found, providing further evidence for the validity of the two-factor model. Furthermore, it is suggested that behavioral and self-report measures of impulsivity represent different constructs.