[The situation in the German forensic commitment-Results of a survey by the DGPPN]. / Die Situation des deutschen Maßregelvollzugs ­ Ergebnisse einer Umfrage der DGPPN.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In German forensic psychiatry detention under Sections 63 and 64 of the German Penal Code have been repeatedly reformed over the past years; however, despite the most recent amendments to the law on detention, clinics and state authorities warn of insufficient capacities and worrying conditions. Media reports paint a defiant picture. At the same time, there is a lack of valid data that would allow an objective description of the situation in forensic psychiatry. Against this background the management of institutions in Germany has been surveyed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The survey was conducted as an online survey and sent to all 78 forensic hospitals in Germany. The survey covered topics such as structural data of the facilities, the occupancy and staffing situation, incidents, support from supervisory authorities and funding agencies, and patient characteristics. The results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: Of the 78 facilities contacted, 45 (approximately 60%) participated at least partially in the survey. Many of the clinics (68.5%) complained of significant overcrowding. A clear lack of staff and rooms was reported, at the same time it was stated that patients do not receive adequate treatment. Approximately 1 in 5 patients have a length of stay for more than 10 years and one third of the clinics reported an increasing number of physical assaults by patients. CONCLUSION: This overview shows that the forensic psychiatric hospitals are in very different but generally strained situations. A significant number of clinics are under great pressure. Financial, structural, spatial and personnel resources were described as insufficient to properly and professionally fulfill the legal mandate. The treatment standards presented by the DGPPN in 2017 are not met in many clinics.

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: a focused systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). AIMS: To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely. METHOD: We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P < 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P < 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD -0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference -8.49, P < 0.00001), manual-assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference -3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD -0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD -0.48, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings.

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.

Forensic mental health in Europe: some key figures.

PURPOSE: While the number of forensic beds and the duration of psychiatric forensic psychiatric treatment have increased in several European Union (EU) states, this is not observed in others. Patient demographics, average lengths of stay and legal frameworks also differ substantially. The lack of basic epidemiological information on forensic patients and of shared indicators on forensic care within Europe is an obstacle to comparative research. The reasons for such variation are not well understood. METHODS: Experts from seventeen EU states submitted data on forensic bed prevalence rates, gender distributions and average length of stay in forensic in-patient facilities. Average length of stay and bed prevalence rates were examined for associations with country-level variables including Gross Domestic Product (GDP), expenditure on healthcare, prison population, general psychiatric bed prevalence rates and democracy index scores. RESULTS: The data demonstrated substantial differences between states. Average length of stay was approximately ten times greater in the Netherlands than Slovenia. In England and Wales, 18% of patients were female compared to 5% in Slovenia. There was a 17-fold difference in forensic bed rates per 100,000 between the Netherlands and Spain. Exploratory analyses suggested average length of stay was associated with GDP, expenditure on healthcare and democracy index scores. CONCLUSION: The data presented in this study represent the most recent overview of key epidemiological data in forensic services across seventeen EU states. However, systematically collected epidemiological data of good quality remain elusive in forensic psychiatry. States need to develop common definitions and recording practices and contribute to a publicly available database of such epidemiological indicators.

The Effects of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation on Impulsivity in People with Mental Disorders: a Systematic Review and Explanatory Meta-Analysis.

Impulsivity is a multi-faceted construct that underpins various mental health disorders. Impulsive behavior exacts a substantial health and economic burden, hence the importance of developing specific interventions to target impulsivity. Two forms of non-invasive brain stimulation, namely transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), have been used to modulate impulsivity. To date, no reviews have systematically examined their effects on modulating impulsivity in people with mental health disorders. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from AMED, Embase, Medline and PsycINFO databases on the use of rTMS and tDCS to modulate impulsivity in people with mental health disorders. Results from 11 tDCS and 18 rTMS studies indicate that tDCS has a significant, albeit small, effect on modulating impulsivity (g = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.48; p = .004) whereas rTMS has no significant effect on impulsivity (g = -0.08; 95% Cl, -0.35 to 0.19; p = .550). Subgroup analyses identified the key parameters required to enhance the effects of tDCS and rTMS on impulsivity. Gender and stimulation intensity acted as significant moderators for effects of rTMS on impulsivity. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of tDCS or rTMS in clinical practice to reduce impulsivity in people with mental health disorders. The use of standardized non-invasive brain stimulation protocols and outcome measures in patients with the same diagnosis is advised to minimize methodological heterogeneity.

Oxytocin modulates the effective connectivity between the precuneus and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

Our social activity is heavily influenced by the process of introspection, with emerging research suggesting a role for the Default Mode Network (DMN) in social cognition. We hypothesize that oxytocin, a neuropeptide with an important role in social behaviour, can effectively alter the connectivity of the DMN. We test this hypothesis using a randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial where 15 healthy male participants received 24 IU oxytocin or placebo prior to a resting-state functional MRI scan. We used Granger Causality Analysis for the first time to probe the role of oxytocin on brain networks and found that oxytocin reverses the pattern of effective connectivity between the bilateral precuneus and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), a key central executive network (CEN) region. Under placebo, the bilateral precuneus exerted a significant negative causal influence on the left dlPFC and the left dlPFC exerted a significant positive causal influence on the bilateral precuneus. However, under oxytocin, these patterns were reversed, i.e. positive causal influence from the bilateral precuneus to the left dlPFC and negative causal influence from the left dlPFC to the bilateral precuneus (with statistically significant effects for the right precuneus). We propose that these oxytocin-induced effects could be a mechanistic process by which it modulates social cognition. These results provide a measurable target for the physiological effects of oxytocin in the brain and offer oxytocin as a potential agent to enhance the cooperative role of the predominantly 'task-inactive' 'default mode' brain regions in both healthy and patient populations.

Psychological interventions for antisocial personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with poor mental health, criminality, substance use and relationship difficulties. This review updates Gibbon 2010 (previous version of the review). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential benefits and adverse effects of psychological interventions for adults with AsPD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also searched reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of adults, where participants with an AsPD or dissocial personality disorder diagnosis comprised at least 75% of the sample randomly allocated to receive a psychological intervention, treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list or no treatment. The primary outcomes were aggression, reconviction, global state/functioning, social functioning and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 19 studies (eight new to this update), comparing a psychological intervention against TAU (also called 'standard Maintenance'(SM) in some studies). Eight of the 18 psychological interventions reported data on our primary outcomes. Four studies focussed exclusively on participants with AsPD, and 15 on subgroups of participants with AsPD. Data were available from only 10 studies involving 605 participants. Eight studies were conducted in the UK and North America, and one each in Iran, Denmark and the Netherlands. Study duration ranged from 4 to 156 weeks (median = 26 weeks). Most participants (75%) were male; the mean age was 35.5 years. Eleven studies (58%) were funded by research councils. Risk of bias was high for 13% of criteria, unclear for 54% and low for 33%. Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) + TAU versus TAU One study (52 participants) found no evidence of a difference between CBT + TAU and TAU for physical aggression (odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.07; low-certainty evidence) for outpatients at 12 months post-intervention. One study (39 participants) found no evidence of a difference between CBT + TAU and TAU for social functioning (mean difference (MD) -1.60 points, 95% CI -5.21 to 2.01; very low-certainty evidence), measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ; range = 0-24), for outpatients at 12 months post-intervention. Impulsive lifestyle counselling (ILC) + TAU versus TAU One study (118 participants) found no evidence of a difference between ILC + TAU and TAU for trait aggression (assessed with Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire-Short Form) for outpatients at nine months (MD 0.07, CI -0.35 to 0.49; very low-certainty evidence). One study (142 participants) found no evidence of a difference between ILC + TAU and TAU alone for the adverse event of death (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.54; very low-certainty evidence) or incarceration (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.86; very low-certainty evidence) for outpatients between three and nine months follow-up. Contingency management (CM) + SM versus SM One study (83 participants) found evidence that, compared to SM alone, CM + SM may improve social functioning measured by family/social scores on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI; range = 0 (no problems) to 1 (severe problems); MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; low-certainty evidence) for outpatients at six months. 'Driving whilst intoxicated' programme (DWI) + incarceration versus incarceration One study (52 participants) found no evidence of a difference between DWI + incarceration and incarceration alone on reconviction rates (hazard ratio 0.56, CI -0.19 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence) for prisoner participants at 24 months. Schema therapy (ST) versus TAU One study (30 participants in a secure psychiatric hospital, 87% had AsPD diagnosis) found no evidence of a difference between ST and TAU for the number of participants who were reconvicted (OR 2.81, 95% CI 0.11 to 74.56, P = 0.54) at three years. The same study found that ST may be more likely to improve social functioning (assessed by the mean number of days until patients gain unsupervised leave (MD -137.33, 95% CI -271.31 to -3.35) compared to TAU, and no evidence of a difference between the groups for overall adverse events, classified as the number of people experiencing a global negative outcome over a three-year period (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19). The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Social problem-solving (SPS) + psychoeducation (PE) versus TAU One study (17 participants) found no evidence of a difference between SPS + PE and TAU for participants' level of social functioning (MD -1.60 points, 95% CI -5.43 to 2.23; very low-certainty evidence) assessed with the SFQ at six months post-intervention. Dialectical behaviour therapy versus TAU One study (skewed data, 14 participants) provided very low-certainty, narrative evidence that DBT may reduce the number of self-harm days for outpatients at two months post-intervention compared to TAU. Psychosocial risk management (PSRM; 'Resettle') versus TAU One study (skewed data, 35 participants) found no evidence of a difference between PSRM and TAU for a number of officially recorded offences at one year after release from prison. It also found no evidence of difference between the PSRM and TAU for the adverse event of death during the study period (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 14.83, P = 0.94, 72 participants (90% had AsPD), 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence available on psychological interventions for adults with AsPD. Few interventions addressed the primary outcomes of this review and, of the eight that did, only three (CM + SM, ST and DBT) showed evidence that the intervention may be more effective than the control condition. No intervention reported compelling evidence of change in antisocial behaviour. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low, meaning that we have little confidence in the effect estimates reported. The conclusions of this update have not changed from those of the original review, despite the addition of eight new studies. This highlights the ongoing need for further methodologically rigorous studies to yield further data to guide the development and application of psychological interventions for AsPD and may suggest that a new approach is required.

Pharmacological interventions for antisocial personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death. Certain types of medication (drugs) may help people with AsPD. This review updates a previous Cochrane review, published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for adults with AsPD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which adults (age 18 years and over) with a diagnosis of AsPD or dissocial personality disorder were allocated to a pharmacological intervention or placebo control condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings tables' and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. The primary outcomes were: aggression; reconviction; global state/global functioning; social functioning; and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies (three new to this update), involving 416 participants with AsPD. Most studies (10/11) were conducted in North America. Seven studies were conducted exclusively in an outpatient setting, one in an inpatient setting, and one in prison; two studies used multiple settings. The average age of participants ranged from 28.6 years to 45.1 years (overall mean age 39.6 years). Participants were predominantly (90%) male. Study duration ranged from 6 to 24 weeks, with no follow-up period. Data were available from only four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. All the available data came from unreplicated, single reports, and did not allow independent statistical analysis to be conducted. Many review findings were limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators. No study set out to recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD; many participants presented primarily with substance abuse problems. The studies reported on four primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were aggression (six studies) global/state functioning (three studies), social functioning (one study), and adverse events (seven studies). Secondary outcomes were leaving the study early (eight studies), substance misuse (five studies), employment status (one study), impulsivity (one study), anger (three studies), and mental state (three studies). No study reported data on the primary outcome of reconviction or the secondary outcomes of quality of life, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, housing/accommodation status, economic outcomes or prison/service outcomes.   Eleven different drugs were compared with placebo, but data for AsPD participants were only available for five comparisons. Three classes of drug were represented: antiepileptic; antidepressant; and dopamine agonist (anti-Parkinsonian) drugs. We considered selection bias to be unclear in 8/11 studies, attrition bias to be high in 7/11 studies, and performance bias to be low in 7/11 studies. Using GRADE, we rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome in this review as very low, meaning that we have very little confidence in the effect estimates reported. Phenytoin (antiepileptic) versus placebo One study (60 participants) reported very low-certainty evidence that phenytoin (300 mg/day), compared to placebo, may reduce the mean frequency of aggressive acts per week (phenytoin mean = 0.33, no standard deviation (SD) reported; placebo mean = 0.51, no SD reported) in male prisoners with aggression (skewed data) at endpoint (six weeks). The same study (60 participants) reported no evidence of difference between phenytoin and placebo in the number of participants reporting the adverse event of nausea during week one (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 16.76; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors also reported that no important side effects were detectable via blood cell counts or liver enzyme tests (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure reconviction, global/state functioning or social functioning. Desipramine (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (29 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between desipramine (250 to 300 mg/day) and placebo on mean social functioning scores (desipramine = 0.19; placebo = 0.21), assessed with the family-social domain of the Addiction Severity Index (scores range from zero to one, with higher values indicating worse social functioning), at endpoint (12 weeks) (very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies included in this comparison measured the other primary outcomes: aggression; reconviction; global/state functioning; or adverse events. Nortriptyline (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (20 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (nortriptyline = 0.3; placebo = 0.7), assessed with the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90) Global Severity Index (GSI; mean of subscale scores, ranging from zero to four, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms), at endpoint (six months) in men with alcohol dependency (very low-certainty evidence). The study measured side effects but did not report data on adverse events for the AsPD subgroup. The study did not measure aggression, reconviction or social functioning. Bromocriptine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo One study (18 participants) reported no evidence of difference between bromocriptine (15 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (bromocriptine = 0.4; placebo = 0.7), measured with the GSI of the SCL-90 at endpoint (six months) (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on adverse effects, but reported that 12 patients randomised to the bromocriptine group experienced severe side effects, five of whom dropped out of the study in the first two days due to nausea and severe flu-like symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure aggression, reconviction and social functioning. Amantadine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo The study in this comparison did not measure any of the primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to draw any conclusion about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder. The evidence comes from single, unreplicated studies of mostly older medications. The studies also have methodological issues that severely limit the confidence we can draw from their results. Future studies should recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD, and use relevant outcome measures, including reconviction.

Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.

A comparison of long-term medium secure patients within NHS and private and charitable sector units in England.

BACKGROUND: In England, forensic psychiatric hospital services are provided at three security levels: high, medium and low. All are publicly funded and similarly regulated, but medium and low secure services are provided in the private and charitable (PCS) sector as well as the National Health Service (NHS). Originally, medium secure hospital services were conceived as for up to 2 years' inpatient stay, but numbers of longer stay patients have been rising. Little is known about their characteristics or whether they differ between NHS and PCS settings. AIMS: To describe and compare characteristics of long-stay patients in NHS and in PCS medium security hospital units. METHODS: Data were extracted from clinical records in 14 NHS and 9 PCS hospital units for all patients fulfilling criteria for long stay: having been in high security for more than 10 years or medium security for more than 5 years or in a mix of both for more than 15 years in total. RESULTS: 178 NHS and 107 PCS patients were eligible for inclusion, respectively, 16 and 22% of the total patient populations in these settings. The mean length of stay in a medium or high secure setting was similar: 163 and 164 months. Characteristics of the patients, however, differed between unit type. NHS services admitted more patients from prison and PCS services more from other hospitals. NHS services included a lower proportion of patients with personality disorder or intellectual disability. 'Challenging behaviour' was more prevalent in PCS; a history of absconding was found more often among NHS patients. CONCLUSIONS: The two systems of service appear to be used differently. More research is needed to explain why patients apparently without behavioural disturbances remain in specialist secure facilities for such a long time and whether their needs are truly being met in the least restrictive environment possible.

Learning from research: Adapting interventions for sexual offending to improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Sexual behaviour towards another person who does not or cannot consent to it causes serious harm to its victims. Understandable tendencies towards isolating or shaming the offenders, however, may actually increase risks of recidivism and further such harms. AIM: The study aims to consider evidence for the effectiveness of interventions for sex offenders, mainly in a U.K. context, across four areas: criminal justice system programmes, medication, interventions for sex offenders with personality disorder and a community-based model for the reintegration-Circles of Support and Accountability, and identify key evidence gaps. METHODS: We searched for reviews in the following four strands of work-psychosocial programmes, medication, personality focused therapies, and Circles of Support and Accountability-and identified gaps in knowledge. FINDINGS: Randomised controlled trials in this field are rare but have been achieved. Findings from more naturalistic outcome studies of sex offender treatment programmes are disappointing, but recidivism rates among released sex offender prisoners are low, regardless. Medication relying on substantial physiological change raises substantial ethical concerns. Not all sex offenders have a mental disorder but up to half have been diagnosed with a personality disorder, which may need specific treatment. Evidence is growing that lay work such as Circles of Support and Accountability is a valuable adjunct to other interventions. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: In this field, where tensions between attributions swing between "madness" and "badness," there is growing evidence for optimism that complexity of history and presentation can be met through cooperation between the many disciplines, integrative strategies, and wider community engagement. The need now is for large, prospective controlled trials of interventions, with long periods of follow-up. Perhaps, the most exciting developments have come from the wider public. More research into the qualities of these volunteers might inform public education and health strategies supporting wider safety.

The Effects of rTMS on Impulsivity in Normal Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Impulsivity is a multi-dimensional construct that is regarded as a symptom of many psychiatric disorders. Harm resulting from impulsive behaviour can be substantial for the individuals concerned, for their social network, and for wider society. Therefore, the importance of developing therapeutic interventions to target impulsivity is paramount. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from AMED, Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO databases on the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in healthy adults to modulate different subdomains (motor, temporal and reflection) of impulsivity. The results indicated that rTMS has distinct effects on different impulsivity subdomains. It has a significant, albeit small, effect on modulating motor impulsivity (g = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.43, p < .001) and a moderate effect on temporal impulsivity (g = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.86, p < .001). Subgroup analyses (e.g., excitatory vs. inhibitory rTMS, conventional rTMS vs. theta burst stimulation, analyses by stimulation sites, and type of outcome measure used) identified key parameters associated with the effects of rTMS on motor and temporal impulsivity. Age, sex, stimulation intensity and the number of pulses were not significant moderators for effects of rTMS on motor impulsivity. Due to lack of sufficient data to inform a meta-analysis, it has not been possible to assess the effects of rTMS on reflection impulsivity. The present findings provide preliminary evidence that rTMS can be used to modulate motor and temporal impulsivity in healthy individuals. Further studies are required to extend the use of rTMS to modulate impulsivity in those at most risk of engaging in harmful behaviour as a result of impulsivity, such as patients with offending histories and those with a history of self-harming behaviour.

Effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on empathy and impulsivity in healthy adult males.

Impulsivity and empathy are clinically relevant multi-dimensional concepts. Existing evidence suggests the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC) plays a crucial role in impulsivity and empathy. However, the neuromodulation effect of excitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at the LDLPFC is insufficiently explored in the current literature. To address this important gap in the literature, we aimed to examine the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) at the LDLPFC on impulsivity and empathy. A single-blind sham-controlled randomised crossover trial involving twenty-three healthy male adults was conducted. The iTBS protocol delivered 1800 pulses to the LDLPFC at 80% of the motor threshold in each condition. Trait impulsivity and empathy were measured at baseline using the Barrett Impulsiveness Scale and UPPS-P Impulsiveness Scale. The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, Information Sampling Task, and Adjusting Amount Task serving as behavioural measures of empathy, cognitive and temporal impulsivity respectively were administered before and after iTBS sessions. No significant changes were found on any of the measures after iTBS at the LDLPFC compared to the sham stimulation. Neuromodulation at the LDLPFC using iTBS may not alter cognitive empathy and temporal and cognitive impulsivity. Further research is required using amended protocols in a large-scaled sample.

The individual experience of ageing prisoners: systematic review and meta-synthesis through a Good Lives Model framework.

OBJECTIVE: The existing literature on ageing prisoners tends to focus on such aspects as diagnosis and physical ill-health. In contrast, the experience of imprisonment from the perspective of ageing prisoners has received less attention. Grounded in a Good Lives Model theoretical framework, we reviewed and meta-synthesised literature around their experience of life in prison, its impact on their wellbeing and how prison services are currently addressing their complex needs. We further identify potential areas of improvement. METHODS: 1. Systematic search on Assia, PsycInfo, MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Google and Gov.uk. 2. Extraction and categorisation of data on NVivo. 3. Development of themes through thematic analysis and meta-synthesis. 4. Identification of potential areas of improvement. RESULTS: We selected 25 studies for our review, of which 13 were from the USA, seven from the UK, two from Australia and one each from Ireland, Switzerland and Israel. We identified three themes: The hardship of imprisonment, addressing health and social care needs, and the route out of prison. CONCLUSIONS: Ageing prisoners have unique and complex health and social care needs which, to varying degree across different countries, are mostly unmet. Promising initiatives to address their needs are emerging, but, at present time, the overall experience of incarceration for the ageing prisoner is quite poor, given the inconsistent physical, emotional and social care support offered from prison intake to release and beyond. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Long-stay in forensic-psychiatric care in the UK.

PURPOSE: Forensic services provide care for mentally disordered offenders. In England this is provided at three levels of security-low, medium and high. Significant number of patients within these settings remain detained for protracted periods of time. This is both very costly and restrictive for individuals. No national studies have been conducted on this subject in England. METHODS: We employed a cross-sectional design using anonymised data from medical records departments in English secure forensic units. Data were collected from a large sample of medium secure patients (n = 1572) as well as the total high secure patient population (n = 715) resident on the census date (01-04-2013). We defined long-stay as a stay of more than 10 years in high, 5 years in medium or 15 years in a mix of high and medium secure settings. Long-stay status was assessed against patient demographic and admission information. RESULTS: We identified a significant proportion of long-stayers: 23.5% in high secure and 18.1% in medium secure care. Amongst medium secure units a large variation in long-stay prevalence was observed from 0 to 50%. Results indicated that MHA section, admission source and current ward type were independent factors associated with long-stay status. CONCLUSION: This study identified a significant proportion of long-stayers in forensic settings in England. Sociodemographic factors identified in studies in individual settings may be less important than previously thought. The large variation in prevalence of long-stayers observed in the medium secure sample warrants further investigation.

Volunteering With Sex Offenders: The Attitudes of Volunteers Toward Sex Offenders, Their Treatment, and Rehabilitation.

The general public has been shown to hold negative attitudes toward sexual offenders, sex offender treatment, and the rehabilitation of sexual offenders. It appears pertinent to the success of sex offender management strategies that utilise volunteers that selected volunteers do not share these attitudes. Here, volunteers for Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA), a community-based initiative supporting the reintegration of sex offenders, completed three validated psychometric measures assessing attitudes toward sex offenders in general and toward their treatment and rehabilitation. Responses were compared with a U.K. general public sample. The results showed that volunteers held more positive attitudes toward sex offenders, sex offender treatment, and sex offender rehabilitation than the U.K. general public sample. The significance of these findings is discussed alongside directions for future research.

Klinefelter's syndrome and sexual offending - A literature review.

BACKGROUND: Klinefelter's syndrome is a sex chromosome abnormality affecting approximately 1 in 1000 men. There have been suggestions that it is associated with a higher than average prevalence of sexual offending but to what extent does research evidence support this assertion? AIMS: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of published research to establish the prevalence of sexual offending in men with Klinefelter's syndrome. METHOD: The databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE were searched from inception until 31 December 2016 by using a range of terms for Klinefelter's syndrome and for sexual offending. All selected papers were examined for quality by using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. RESULTS: We identified 53 relevant papers of which 10 met our inclusion criteria. All but one were prevalence studies conducted in a prison or hospital setting. The one, Danish, register-based cohort study did suggest an increased risk of sex offending among Klinefelter men, probably established before the diagnosis was made and, therefore, any hormone replacement instituted. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to date to support concerns about exceptional risk of sex offending among men with Klinefelter's syndrome. Rather, it is arguable that there is a research gap in understanding how the experience of and treatment for their condition may affect them. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Training probation officers in case formulation for personality disordered offenders.

BACKGROUND: The UK Strategy on Managing High Risk of Serious Harm Offenders with Severe Personality Disorder proposes an important role for offender managers in completing case formulations about such offenders. There is little evidence on whether this can be achieved. AIM: Our primary aims were to devise, implement and evaluate training in case formulation for offender managers. A secondary aim was to assess whether the training led to changes in offender manager attitudes towards working with offenders with personality disorder. METHOD: A 5-day training programme was delivered to 20 offender managers, whose ability to carry out case formulation was assessed before and after the training using a 10-point quality checklist. Attitudes towards personality disorder were also assessed before and after. Qualitative feedback on the training was used to provide further insight into the findings. RESULTS: Offender managers showed a significant improvement in their ability to carry out case formulation following training, with 7 of the 10 quality domains on the quality checklist rated as at least 'satisfactory' post training. Qualitative feedback highlighted reasons for some of the shortfalls in two of the three areas that did not show improvement. Improvements were shown in attitudes towards working with offenders with personality disorder in two of three domains. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide further evidence for the effectiveness of training offender managers in case formulation. This is encouraging in terms of extending implementation of the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway, but a full trial is indicated, partly not only because sample sizes have been small so far, but also because the participants have been enthusiastic volunteers rather than randomly selected offender managers, and there are indications from other work that we know too little about optimal extent of training and about whether its effects are sustained. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Clozapine dose for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking and speech, emotional processes, behaviour and sense of self. Clozapine is useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, particularly when other antipsychotic medications have failed. It improves positive symptoms (such as delusions and hallucinations) and negative symptoms (such as withdrawal and poverty of speech). However, it is unclear what dose of clozapine is most effective with the least side effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of clozapine at different doses and to identify the optimal dose of clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (August 2011 and 8 December 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding status or language, that compared the effects of clozapine at different doses in people with schizophrenia and related disorders, diagnosed by any criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations from the searches, identified relevant abstracts, obtained full articles of relevant abstracts, and classified trials as included or excluded. We included trials that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five studies that could be included. Each compared the effects of clozapine at very low dose (up to 149 mg/day), low dose (150 mg/day to 300 mg/day) and standard dose (301 mg/day to 600 mg/day). Four of the five included studies were based on a small number of participants. We rated all the evidence reported for the main outcomes of interest as low or very low quality. No data were available for the main outcomes of global state, service use or quality of life. Very low dose compared to low doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low and very low doses of clozapine in terms of average Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 3.55, 95% CI -4.50 to 11.60, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in body mass index (BMI) in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.75, low-quality evidence). Very low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between very low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of average BPRS-A endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 6.67, 95% CI -2.09 to 15.43, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 58, MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.96, low-quality evidence) Low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of both clinician-assessed clinical improvement (2 RCTs, n = 141, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.61, medium-quality evidence) and clinically important response as more than 30% change in BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 176, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10, medium-quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).We found some evidence of effect for other adverse effect outcomes; however, the data were again limited. Very low dose compared to low doseThere was limited evidence that serum triglycerides were lower at low-dose clozapine compared to very low dose in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49). Low dose compared to standard doseWeight gain was lower at very low dose compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 27, MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.38 to -0.02). Glucose level one hour after meal was also lower at very lose dose (1 RCT, n = 58, MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.90 to -0.30). Total cholesterol levels were higher at very low compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 58, n = 58, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.80). Low dose compared to standard doseThere was evidence of fewer adverse effects, measured as lower TESS scores, in the low-dose group in the short term (2 RCTs, n = 266, MD -3.99, 95% CI -5.75 to -2.24); and in one study there was evidence that the incidence of lethargy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97), hypersalivation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84), dizziness (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81) and tachycardia (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.71) was less at low dose compared to standard dose. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of effect on mental state between standard, low and very low dose regimes, but we did not identify any trials on high or very high doses of clozapine. BMI measurements were similar between groups in the short term, although weight gain was less at very low dose compared to standard dose in one study. There was limited evidence that the incidence of some adverse effects was greater at standard dose compared to lower dose regimes. We found very little useful data and the evidence available is generally of low or very low quality. More studies are needed to validate our findings and report on outcomes such as relapse, remission, social functioning, service utilisation, cost-effectiveness, satisfaction with care, and quality of life. There is a particular lack of medium- or long-term outcome data, and on dose regimes above the standard rate.