Group schema therapy: the temporal relationship between early maladaptive schemas and global psychological distress.

Schema therapy is an effective treatment for personality disorders (PDs). The theory of schema therapy assumes that the decrease of global psychological distress is mediated by change in Early Maladaptive Schemas. The few studies that have investigated a temporal relationship have produced contradictory results. This study examined the temporal relationship between changes in Early Maladaptive Schemas and global psychological distress in Group Schema Therapy (GST) for patients with personality disorders.Assessments were made of 115 patients at baseline, after 20, 40 and after 60 sessions of treatment. We used the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ) to measure the severity of Early Maladaptive Schemas and the Symptom Check List-90 Revisited (SCL-90R) to measure global psychological distress. Linear mixed model analyzes were used to examine the temporal relationship between the initial phase (0-20 and 0-40 sessions) and the later phase (40-60 sessions).Change in Early Maladaptive Schemas does not precede change in global psychological distress. Conversely, global psychological distress does not precede change in Early Maladaptive Schemas; the improvement in both indicators is concurrent.In this study, we could not confirm that the decrease of Early Maladaptive Schemas precedes decrease of global psychological distress. We found a concurrent relationship.

Exploring the effect of group schema therapy and comorbidity on the treatment course of personality disorders.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an update of outcome studies of schema group therapy for personality disorders and the effect of comorbidity in order to explore whether schema group therapy might be effective for this patient group and what dosage is required. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies of short-term schema group therapy for personality disorders with or without comorbidity show moderately effective results but the majority of patients fail to achieve full remission from global psychological symptom distress. Preliminary findings revealed that those unremitted patients might benefit from 40 to 60 sessions. Patients with severe personality disorders (such as borderline personality disorders) seem to need longer and/or more intensive treatment dosage to recover. SUMMARY: We advocate short-term schema therapy in groups as a valuable first step in a stepped-care programme for patients with moderate personality disorders and comorbidity.Treatment extension or treatment intensification may be indicated in patients who do not recover. Patients with severe personality disorders seem to require long-term outpatient group treatment, with a combination of group and individual treatment being preferable. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed in order to determine which treatment dosage is necessary for whom.

Mentalization-Based Treatment Versus Specialist Treatment as Usual for Borderline Personality Disorder: Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial With 36-Month Follow-Up.

The authors present an economic evaluation performed alongside a randomized controlled trial of mentalization-based treatment in a day hospital setting (MBT-DH) versus specialist treatment as usual (S-TAU) for borderline personality disorder (BPD) with a 36-month follow-up period. Ninety-five patients from two Dutch treatment institutes were randomly assigned. Societal costs were compared with the proportion of BPD remissions and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured using the five-dimensional EuroQol instrument. The incremental societal costs for one additional QALY could not be calculated. The costs for one additional BPD remission with MBT-DH are approximately €29,000. There was a 58% likelihood that MBT-DH leads to more remitted patients at additional costs compared with S-TAU, and a 35% likelihood that MBT-DH leads to more remissions at lower costs. MBT-DH is not cost-effective compared with S-TAU with QALYs as the outcome, and slightly more cost-effective than S-TAU at 36 months with BPD symptoms as the outcome.

Psychological symptoms, early maladaptive schemas and schema modes: predictors of the outcome of group schema therapy in patients with personality disorders.

Objective: This naturalistic study examined the outcomes of group schema therapy for patients with personality disorders (PD) and the effect of psychological symptoms, early maladaptive schemas (EMS) and schema modes on outcome.Method: Assessments were made of 194 patients at baseline, during treatment, at treatment termination and at three-month follow-up. We used the Symptom Checklist-General Severity Index (SCL-GSI) to measure the remission-rate of global psychological distress and as a dependent variable in a multilevel model to conduct univariate and multiple variate analyses.Results: The research sample achieved medium symptom reduction (pre-post d = 0.65, 95% CI [0.39-0.91]) and the remission rate was about 30% after 60 sessions. These results remained stable at three-month follow-up (pre-follow-up d = 0.61, 95% CI [0.29-0.94]; 28.9%). Higher baseline scores on the SCL scale interpersonal sensitivity, the EMS defectiveness/shame and all the maladaptive schema modes together predicted improvements in global psychological distress after treatment.Conclusions: A long-term form of group schema therapy proved effective for a broad group of patients with PD. Internalizing symptoms seems predictive for improvement at outcome. Almost a third of the patients achieved remission. There is therefore room for improvement, possibly by increasing dose or intensity in combination with individual sessions.

The influence of depressive symptoms on the effectiveness of a short-term group form of Schema Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for personality disorders: a naturalistic study.

BACKGROUND: This naturalistic study examined the outcomes of Short-Term Schema Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in groups with personality disorders, and with high and low severity of depressive symptoms. METHODS: Assessments were made at baseline, at mid-treatment (week 10), at treatment termination (week 20) and at three-month follow-up (week 32) of 225 patients with personality disorders and high severity of depressive symptoms (PD-Hi) and patients with low severity of depressive symptoms (PD-Lo). The assessments focused on symptom (Symptom Checklist-90) and schema severity (Young Schema Questionnaire) and coping styles (Utrecht Coping List). We also measured the rate of symptom remission. The data obtained were subjected to multilevel analysis. RESULTS: Psychiatric symptoms and maladaptive schemas improved in both patient groups. Effect sizes were moderate, and even small for the coping styles. Symptom remission was achieved in the minority of the total sample. Remission in psychiatric symptomatology was seen in more PD-Lo patients at treatment termination. However, the difference in levels of remission between the two patient groups was no longer apparent at follow-up. CONCLUSION: A short-term form of schema therapy in groups proved to be an effective approach for a broad group of patients with personality disorders. However, the majority of patients did not achieve symptom remission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

The effect of comorbid personality disorder on depression outcome after short-term psychotherapy in a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Time-limited psychotherapy for depression is effective. However, comorbid personality disorders affect therapy outcomes negatively. Studies of follow-up effects and results relating to the influence of comorbid personality disorder and treatment modality are scarce. AIMS: To determine the influence of comorbid personality disorder and treatment modality on outcomes after cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) or short-term psychodynamic supportive psychotherapy (SPSP) for depression. METHOD: This study draws on data from a previously published randomised clinical trial contrasting SPSP and CBT for depression (both 16 sessions). We compared the effectiveness of these psychotherapies for patients with and without personality disorder (n = 196). The primary measure was depression outcome; the secondary measurements were interpersonal functioning and quality of life. Collected data were analysed using multilevel analysis. Trial registration: ISRCTN31263312 (http://www.controlled-trials.com). RESULTS: Although participants with and without comorbid personality disorder improved at treatment termination (d = 1.04, 95% CI 0.77-1.31 and d = 1.36, 95% CI 0.97-1.76, respectively) and at follow-up (d = 1.15, 95% CI 0.87-1.43 and d = 2.12, 95% CI 1.65-2.59 respectively), personality disorder had a negative effect on depression outcome at both measurement points (P < 0.05). A similar negative effect on interpersonal functioning was no longer apparent at follow-up. Comorbid personality disorder had no influence on social functioning or quality of life outcomes, irrespective of treatment modality. CONCLUSIONS: CBT and SPSP contribute to the improvement of depressive symptoms and interpersonal problems in depressed patients with and without comorbid personality disorder. Both treatments are an effective first step in a stepped care approach, but - given remaining levels of depression in patients with personality disorder - they are probably inadequate for large numbers of patients with this comorbidity. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.