The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) in the () features a Level of Personality Functioning Scale, measuring intrinsic personality processes that include identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. This study describes the development and psychometric evaluation of a semistructured interview schedule for the multi-item assessment of the level of personality functioning, the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning (STiP-5.1). Eighty patients and 18 community subjects completed the STiP-5.1. Patients additionally completed the Brief Symptom Inventory, the Severity Indices of Personality Problems, and the Structured Clinical Interview for Axis I and Axis II Personality Disorders. Good interrater reliability was observed in subsamples of patients (n = 40) and nonpatients (n = 18). Associations between the interview scores and conceptually relevant external measures consistently supported the construct validity of the instrument. The STiP-5.1 thus offers a brief, relatively user-friendly instrument with generally favorable psychometric properties for the assessment of level of personality functioning of the AMPD. (PsycINFO Database Record

Family members of psychotic patients in Flanders experience higher associative stigma compared to previous international research. Disruptive behavior by the patient towards in-housing family members is the most accurate predictor of higher associative stigma.

Stigmatization is a major burden in adult psychiatric patients with Axis-I diagnoses, as shown consistently in most studies. Significantly fewer studies on the emergence of psychiatric stigma in adult patients with personality disorders (PDs) exist, although the resulting evidence is conclusive. Some authors consider patients with PDs at risk for severe stigmatization because of intense difficulties during interpersonal contact, even in a psychotherapeutic relationship. The aim of this study was primarily the assessment of pre-existing stigma in patients referred for intensive treatment for PDs. The study enrolled 214 patients admitted to the adult department of a highly specialized mental health care institute offering psychotherapy for patients with severe and complex personality pathology. All patients underwent a standard assessment with self-report questionnaires and a semi-structured interview to measure Axis II PDs. The stigma consciousness questionnaire and the perceived devaluation-discrimination questionnaire, both validated instruments, were used to measure perceived and actual experiences of stigma. Independent sample t-tests were used to investigate differences in the mean total stigma scores for patients both with and without a PD. One-way ANOVAs were performed to assess the differences between having a borderline PD, another PD, or no PD diagnosis. Multiple regression main effect analyses were conducted in order to explore the impact of the different PD diagnosis on the level of stigma. The mean scores across all patient groups were consistent with rather low stigma. No differences were found for patients with or without a PD diagnosis. Level of stigma in general was not associated with an accumulating number of PDs. Given the remarkable results, we would strongly recommend further investigations in the field to better understand the phenomenon of stigma in all its aspects.

No abstract

Background Two types of mentalization-based treatment (MBT), day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP), have been shown to be effective in treating patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study evaluated trajectories of change in a multi-site trial of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. Methods All 114 patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44) from the original multicentre trial were assessed at 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. The primary outcome was symptom severity measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality and interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling and the intention-to-treat principle. Results Patients in both MBT-DH and MBT-IOP maintained the substantial improvements made during the intensive treatment phase and showed further gains during follow-up. Across both conditions, 83% of patients improved in terms of symptom severity, and 97% improved on borderline symptomatology. No significant differences were found between MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. However, trajectories of change were different. Whereas patients in MBT-DH showed greater improvement during the intensive treatment phase, patients in MBT-IOP showed greater continuing improvement during follow-up. Conclusions Patients in both conditions showed similar large improvements over the course of 36 months, despite large differences in treatment intensity. MBT-DH and MBT-IOP were associated with different trajectories of change. Cost-effectiveness considerations and predictors of differential treatment outcome may further inform optimal treatment selection.