Psychoeducation and Problem Solving (PEPS) Therapy for Adults With Personality Disorder: A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial.

We compared psychoeducation and problem solving (PEPS) therapy against usual treatment in a multisite randomized-controlled trial. The primary outcome was social functioning. We aimed to recruit 444 community-dwelling adults with personality disorder; however, safety concerns led to an early cessation of recruitment. A total of 154 people were randomized to PEPS and 152 to usual treatment. Follow-up at 72 weeks was completed for 68%. PEPS therapy was no more effective than usual treatment for improving social functioning (adjusted difference in mean Social Functioning Questionnaire scores = -0.73; 95% CI [-1.83, 0.38]; p = 0.19). PEPS therapy is not an effective treatment for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community.

Psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy for adults with personality disorder: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manualised intervention to improve social functioning.

BACKGROUND: If effective, less intensive treatments for people with personality disorder have the potential to serve more people. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy plus usual treatment against usual treatment alone in improving social problem-solving with adults with personality disorder. DESIGN: Multisite two-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial. SETTING: Community mental health services in three NHS trusts in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults with any personality disorder recruited from community mental health services. INTERVENTIONS: Up to four individual sessions of psychoeducation, a collaborative dialogue about personality disorder, followed by 12 group sessions of problem-solving therapy to help participants learn a process for solving interpersonal problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ). Secondary outcomes were service use (general practitioner records), mood (measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and client-specified three main problems rated by severity. We studied the mechanism of change using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Costs were identified using the Client Service Receipt Inventory and quality of life was identified by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Research assistants blinded to treatment allocation collected follow-up information. RESULTS: There were 739 people referred for the trial and 444 were eligible. More adverse events in the PEPS arm led to a halt to recruitment after 306 people were randomised (90% of planned sample size); 154 participants received PEPS and 152 received usual treatment. The mean age was 38 years and 67% were women. Follow-up at 72 weeks after randomisation was completed for 62% of participants in the usual-treatment arm and 73% in the PEPS arm. Intention-to-treat analyses compared individuals as randomised, regardless of treatment received or availability of 72-week follow-up SFQ data. Median attendance at psychoeducation sessions was approximately 90% and for problem-solving sessions was approximately 50%. PEPS therapy plus usual treatment was no more effective than usual treatment alone for the primary outcome [adjusted difference in means for SFQ -0.73 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to 0.38 points; p = 0.19], any of the secondary outcomes or social problem-solving. Over the follow-up, PEPS costs were, on average, £182 less than for usual treatment. It also resulted in 0.0148 more quality-adjusted life-years. Neither difference was statistically significant. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds, the intervention had a 64% likelihood of being the more cost-effective option. More adverse events, mainly incidents of self-harm, occurred in the PEPS arm, but the difference was not significant (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.64). LIMITATIONS: There was possible bias in adverse event recording because of dependence on self-disclosure or reporting by the clinical team. Non-completion of problem-solving sessions and non-standardisation of usual treatment were limitations. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the use of PEPS therapy alongside standard care for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community. FUTURE WORK: We aim to investigate adverse events by accessing centrally held NHS data on deaths and hospitalisation for all PEPS trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70660936. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psycho-education with problem solving (PEPS) therapy for adults with personality disorder: a pragmatic multi-site community-based randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Impairment in social functioning is a key component of personality disorder. Therefore psycho-education and problem solving (PEPS) therapy may benefit people with this disorder. Psycho-education aims to educate, build rapport, and motivate people for problem solving therapy. Problem solving therapy aims to help clients solve interpersonal problems positively and rationally, thereby improving social functioning and reducing distress. PEPS therapy has been evaluated with community adults with personality disorder in an exploratory trial. At the end of treatment, compared to a wait-list control group, those treated with PEPS therapy showed better social functioning, as measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ). A definitive evaluation is now being conducted to determine whether PEPS therapy is a clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with personality disorder METHODS: This is a pragmatic, two-arm, multi-centre, parallel, randomised controlled clinical trial. The target population is community-dwelling adults with one or more personality disorder, as identified by the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). Inclusion criteria are: Living in the community (including residential or supported care settings); presence of one or more personality disorder; aged 18 or over; proficiency in spoken English; capacity to provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria are: Primary diagnosis of a functional psychosis; insufficient degree of literacy, comprehension or attention to be able to engage in trial therapy and assessments; currently engaged in a specific programme of psychological treatment for personality disorder or likely to start such treatment during the trial period; currently enrolled in any other trial. Suitable participants are randomly allocated to PEPS therapy plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU only. We aim to recruit 340 men and women. The primary outcome is social functioning as measured by the SFQ. A reduction (i.e., an improvement) of 2 points or more on the SFQ at follow-up 72 weeks post-randomisation is our pre-specified index of clinically significant change. Secondary outcomes include a reduction of unscheduled service usage and an increase in scheduled service usage; improved quality of life; and a reduction in mental distress. DISCUSSION: PEPS therapy has potential as an economical, accessible, and acceptable intervention for people with personality disorder. The results from this randomised controlled trial will tell us if PEPS therapy is effective and cost-effective. If so, then it will be a useful treatment for inclusion in a broader menu of treatment options for this group of service users. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number - ISRCTN70660936.