Designing a Measurement Feedback System for Personality Disorders: Should Outcome Monitoring be Based on Symptom Severity or Personality Functioning?

Measurement feedback systems (MFS) providing insight in treatment progress can improve mental healthcare outcomes. However, there is no uniform measurement feedback system that could be used to measure treatment progress for personality disorders (PD). This study compared two types of measures: a generic measure for symptom severity (Brief Symptom Index, BSI) and a specific measure for personality functioning (Severity Indices of Personality Problems, SIPP) at different points in time in order to provide insight in the most suitable measuring moment for a MFS for PD. This study is conducted in a sample of 996 Dutch PD patients (mean age 33.51 (SD 10.42), 73.1% female). Symptom severity and personality functioning were assessed before and multiple times during treatment, using a timespan of 24 months. Outcomes were examined over time using multilevel modeling. Symptom severity (generic measure) and personality functioning (specific measure) improved equally after 24 months. However, during these 24 months, different patterns of change were observed for symptom severity compared to severity of personality problems. In general, symptom severity decreased most during the 1st months of treatment, whereas personality functioning improved only after 6 months of treatment. A generic instrument of symptom severity is able to measure early changes in symptom distress but may not be able to measure longer term changes in personality functioning. The authors discuss policy implications for benchmarking using specific measures in the treatment of personality disorders.

Denoting treatment outcome in child and adolescent psychiatry: a comparison of continuous and categorical outcomes.

Various approaches have been proposed to denote treatment outcome, such as the effect size of the pre-to-posttest change, percentage improvement, statistically reliable change, and clinical significant change. The aim of the study is to compare these approaches and evaluate their aptitude to differentiate among child and adolescent mental healthcare providers regarding their treatment outcome. Comparing outcomes according to continuous and categorical outcome indicators using real-life data of seven mental healthcare providers, three using the Child Behavior Checklist and four using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as primary outcome measure. Within each dataset consistent differences were found between providers and the various methods led to comparable rankings of providers. Statistical considerations designate continuous outcomes as the optimal choice. Change scores have more statistical power and allow for a ranking of providers at first glance. Expressing providers' performance in proportions of recovered, changed, unchanged, or deteriorated patients has supplementary value, as it denotes outcome in a manner more easily interpreted and appreciated by clinicians, managerial staff, and, last but not least, by patients or their parents.

Differences in developmental problems between victims of different types of child maltreatment.

This study examined differences in developmental problems between children who were victims of two child maltreatment dimensions: abuse versus neglect, and physical versus emotional maltreatment. Family demographics and developmental problems were examined in a clinical sample of 146 Dutch children from families involved in a Multisystemic Therapy - Child Abuse and Neglect treatment trajectory. No differences were found in child behavior problems within the dimension abuse versus neglect. However, more externalizing behavior problems (e.g., aggressive problems) were found in children who experienced physical maltreatment compared to children who experienced emotional maltreatment. Further, more behavior problems (e.g., social problems, attention problems, and trauma symptoms) were found in victims of multitype maltreatment compared to victims of any single-type maltreatment. The results of this study increase the understanding of the impact of child maltreatment poly-victimization, and highlight the value of classifying child maltreatment into physical and emotional maltreatment.

Alliance Between Therapist and Multi-stressed Families During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Effect of Family-Based Videoconferencing.

Background: A strong therapeutic alliance or working relationship is essential for effective face-to-face family-based psychotherapy. However, little is known about the use of VC on alliance in family-based therapy. The recent COVID-19 pandemic led to a national lockdown during which most family-based therapy transferred to VC. Objective: The current study analyzed the development and strength of alliance prior and during lockdown for multi-stressed families participating in Multisystemic Therapy (MST). Method: Alliance with the therapist was reported monthly by 846 caregivers (81% female). Using latent growth curve models (longitudinal approach), the development of alliance was estimated for families participating in MST prior to the lockdown, transferring to VC early in treatment or late in treatment. Using regression analyses (cross-sectional approach), lockdown (yes/no) was included as predictor of alliance. In these analyses, type of family (regular; intellectual disability; concerns regarding child abuse or neglect) and gender of caregiver were included as moderators. Results: Both analytical approaches showed that alliance was not affected by VC, except for families with concerns of child abuse, who reported lower alliances during lockdown. However, these results where no longer significant when controlling for multiple testing. Conclusions: Strong alliances can be developed and maintained during family-based VC sessions with multi-stressed families. However, for some subgroups, such as families with concerns of child abuse, VC might not be suitable or sufficient. Future research needs to investigate the potential and limitations of using VC with families.