STEPPS for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Pragmatic Trial and Naturalistic Comparison With Noncompleters.

Systems Training for Emotional Predictability and Problem Solving (STEPPS) is a group psychotherapy approach that is effective for patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) in a public health care setting. The sample in this study comprised 118 outpatients with BPD who were asked to participate in a Spanish-adapted version of STEPPS for 18 months, a psychotherapy program that could be added to their usual psychiatric intervention. They were divided into an experimental group who participated in STEPPS, and a control group, who received treatment as usual. Several variables were collected and the Borderline Evaluation of Severity Over Time (BEST) scale was administered at pretest, Months 3 and 6, posttest (Month 18), and 2-year follow-up (Month 42), after which a post hoc data analysis was carried out. The STEPPS program improved the as-usual treatment provided previously, and the results were cost-effective. A higher educational level and good patient collaboration predicted better outcome.

Diferencias en la efectividad clínica y funcional, entre trastornos psiquiátricos, de un hospital de día psiquiátrico de agudos para pacientes con enfermedad mental aguda / Differences between psychiatric disorders in the clinical and functional effectiveness of an acute psychiatric day hospital, for acutely ill psychiatric patients

Introducción: El tratamiento intensivo y agudo en unidades psiquiátricas de ingreso a tiempo parcial puede representar una alternativa eficaz a los ingresos hospitalarios a tiempo completo. Sin embargo, existe evidencia que indica que estos dispositivos podrían no ser igualmente eficaces para todos los trastornos psiquiátricos.El objetivo primario del estudio fue explorar las diferencias entre los principales grupos de diagnóstico psiquiátrico en la efectividad de un programa de hospitalización parcial aguda, así como identificar predictores de respuesta al tratamiento.Material y métodosEl estudio se realizó en un hospital psiquiátrico de día. La gravedad clínica se evaluó mediante las escalas BPRS, CGI y HoNOS. También se recogieron variables sociodemográficas. Los pacientes se agruparon en 4grupos diagnósticos amplios (psicosis no afectiva, bipolar, depresión, trastornos de la personalidad).ResultadosSe seleccionó a 331 participantes, 115 de los cuales (34,7%) fueron diagnosticados de psicosis no afectiva, 97 (28,3%) de trastorno bipolar, 92 (27,8%) de trastorno afectivo y 27 (8,2%) de trastorno de personalidad. Los pacientes con trastorno bipolar mostraron una mayor mejoría BPRS (F = 5,30; p = 0,001) y CGI (F = 8,78; p < 0,001) que aquellos que presentaban psicosis o trastorno depresivo. Estancias más prolongadas en el hospital de día y una mayor gravedad inicial (BPRS) fueron factores predictores de buena respuesta. La tasa de reingreso en unidad psiquiátrica a los 30 días del alta fue del 3% y del 11,8% en los siguientes 6 meses.ConclusionesEl cuidado intensivo en una unidad psiquiátrica de día es factible y eficaz para los pacientes con un trastorno mental agudo. Sin embargo, esta eficacia difiere entre los grupos de diagnóstico. (AU)

Introduction: Intensive treatment in acute day-care psychiatric units may represent an efficient alternative to inpatient care. However, there is evidence suggesting that this clinical resource may not be equally effective for every psychiatric disorder.The primary aim of this study was to explore differences between main psychiatric diagnostic groups, in the effectiveness of an acute partial hospitalization program. And, to identify predictors of treatment response.Material and methodsThe study was conducted at an acute psychiatric day hospital. Clinical severity was assessed using BPRS, CGI, and the HoNOS scales. Main socio-demographic variables were also recorded. Patients were clustered into 4wide diagnostic groups (i.e.: non-affective psychosis; bipolar; depressive; and personality disorders) to facilitate statistical analyses.ResultsA total of 331 participants were recruited, 115 of whom (34.7%) were diagnosed with non-affective psychosis, 97 (28.3%) with bipolar disorder, 92 (27.8%) with affective disorder, and 27 (8.2%) with personality disorder. Patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder showed greater improvement in BPRS (F=5.30; P=0.001) and CGI (F=8.78; P<0.001) than those suffering from psychosis or depressive disorder. Longer length of stay in the day-hospital, and greater baseline BPRS severity, were identified as predictors of good clinical response. Thirty-day readmission rate was 3%; at long-term (6 months after discharge) only 11.8% (N=39) of patients were re-admitted to a psychiatric hospitalization unit, and no differences were observed between diagnostic groups.ConclusionsIntensive care in an acute psychiatric day hospital is feasible and effective for patients suffering from an acute mental disorder. However, this effectiveness differs between diagnostic groups. (AU)

Differences between psychiatric disorders in the clinical and functional effectiveness of an acute psychiatric day hospital, for acutely ill psychiatric patients. / Diferencias en la efectividad clínica y funcional, entre trastornos psiquiátricos, de un hospital de día psiquiátrico de agudos para pacientes con enfermedad mental aguda.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive treatment in acute day-care psychiatric units may represent an efficient alternative to inpatient care. However, there is evidence suggesting that this clinical resource may not be equally effective for every psychiatric disorder. The primary aim of this study was to explore differences between main psychiatric diagnostic groups, in the effectiveness of an acute partial hospitalization program. And, to identify predictors of treatment response. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted at an acute psychiatric day hospital. Clinical severity was assessed using BPRS, CGI, and the HoNOS scales. Main socio-demographic variables were also recorded. Patients were clustered into 4wide diagnostic groups (i.e.: non-affective psychosis; bipolar; depressive; and personality disorders) to facilitate statistical analyses. RESULTS: A total of 331 participants were recruited, 115 of whom (34.7%) were diagnosed with non-affective psychosis, 97 (28.3%) with bipolar disorder, 92 (27.8%) with affective disorder, and 27 (8.2%) with personality disorder. Patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder showed greater improvement in BPRS (F=5.30; P=0.001) and CGI (F=8.78; P<0.001) than those suffering from psychosis or depressive disorder. Longer length of stay in the day-hospital, and greater baseline BPRS severity, were identified as predictors of good clinical response. Thirty-day readmission rate was 3%; at long-term (6 months after discharge) only 11.8% (N=39) of patients were re-admitted to a psychiatric hospitalization unit, and no differences were observed between diagnostic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive care in an acute psychiatric day hospital is feasible and effective for patients suffering from an acute mental disorder. However, this effectiveness differs between diagnostic groups.