ObjectivesFew studies outside United Kingdom have documented effects of mentalization-based treatment (MBT) for patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study aimed to investigate outcomes for BPD patients treated in an MBT programme in a Norwegian specialist treatment unit and compare benefits of the implemented MBT with the unit's former psychodynamic treatment programme.DesignA naturalistic, longitudinal, comparison of treatment effects for BPD patients before and after transition to MBT.MethodsThe sample consisted of 345 BPD patients treated in the period 1993–2013. Before 2008, patients were admitted to a psychodynamic treatment programme (n = 281), after 2008 patients received MBT (n = 64). Symptom distress, interpersonal problems, and global functioning were assessed repeatedly throughout the treatment. Suicidal/self-harming acts, hospital admissions, medication, and occupational status were assessed at the start and end of treatment. Therapists' competence and adherence to MBT was rated and found satisfactory. The statistical method for longitudinal analyses was mixed models.ResultsBPD patients in MBT and in the former psychodynamic treatment programme had comparable baseline severity and impairments of functioning. BPD patients in MBT had a remarkably low drop-out rate (2%), significantly lower than the former treatment. Improvements of symptom distress, interpersonal, global and occupational functioning were significantly greater for MBT patients. Large reductions in suicidal/self-harming acts, hospital admissions, and use of medication were evident in the course of both treatments.ConclusionsThe study confirms the effectiveness of MBT for BPD patients and indicates greater clinical benefits than in traditional psychodynamic treatment programmes.Practitioner pointsMBT is an effective treatment for patients with BPD.MBT can successfully be implemented in therapeutic settings outside United Kingdom and may be more beneficial than psychodynamic treatment programmes for BPD patients.

These findings indicate that RF is associated with core aspects of personality pathology and capture clinically relevant phenomena in adult patients with PDs. Moreover, patients with different capacities for mentalization may need different kinds of therapeutic approaches.

The Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) is an outcome measure assessing degree of functional impairment. Its psychometric properties, validity and sensitivity to change have been supported in several studies. However, no explicit psychometric or validity study of WSAS has been performed on data from a large sample of psychiatric outpatients, with and without personality disorders. The aim of this study was therefore to provide additional knowledge of the properties of WSAS in such a sample. The material comprised data from 1371 patients, from 15 different units participating in the Norwegian Network of Personality-Focused Treatment Programs. Psychometric properties of the scale, such as measurement invariance among males and females, longitudinal invariance, as well as associations with other clinical measures and sensitivity to change were analysed. The results confirm that WSAS constitutes a reliable, unidimensional and gender invariant measure, sensitive to change and to severity of mental distress. Although highly associated with levels of depression, WSAS measures a clinically important aspect of impairment. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) presents an alternative model for personality disorders in which severity of personality pathology is evaluated by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The Structured Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, Module I (SCID-5-AMPD I) is a new tool for LPFS assessment, but its interrater reliability (IRR) has not yet been tested. Here we examined the reliability of the Norwegian translation of the SCID-5-AMPD I, applying two different designs: IRR assessment based on ratings of 17 video-recorded SCID-5-AMPD I interviews by five raters; and test-retest IRR based on interviews of 33 patients administered by two different raters within a short interval. For the video-based investigation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged from .77 to .94 for subdomains, .89 to .95 for domains, and .96 for total LPFS. For the test-retest investigation, ICC ranged from .24 to .72 for subdomains, .59 to .90 for domains, and .75 for total LPFS. The test-retest study revealed questionable reliability estimates for some subdomains. However, overall the level of personality functioning was measured with a sufficient degree of IRR when assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD I.

BackgroundAlthough psychotherapy is considered the treatment of choice for patients with personality disorders (PDs), there is no consensus about the optimal level of care for this group of patients. This study reports the results from the 6-year follow-up of the Ullevål Personality Project (UPP), a randomized clinical trial comparing outpatient individual psychotherapy with a long-term step-down treatment program that included a short-term day hospital treatment followed by combined group and individual psychotherapy.MethodsThe UPP included 113 patients with PDs. Outcome was evaluated after 8 months, 18 months, 3 years and 6 years and was based on a wide range of clinical measures, such as psychosocial functioning, interpersonal problems, symptom severity, and axis I and II diagnoses.ResultsAt the 6-year follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in outcome between the treatment groups. Effect sizes ranged from medium to large for all outcome variables in both treatment arms. However, patients in the outpatient group had a marked decline in psychosocial functioning during the period between the 3- and 6-year follow-ups; while psychosocial functioning continued to improve in the step-down group during the same period. This difference between groups was statistically significant.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that both hospital-based long-term step-down treatment and long-term outpatient individual psychotherapy may improve symptoms and psychosocial functioning in poorly functioning PD patients. Social and interpersonal functioning continued to improve in the step-down group during the post-treatment phase, indicating that longer-term changes were stimulated during treatment.Trial registrationNCT00378248.

No abstract

Main objectives were to investigate (1) the longitudinal course of symptom distress among patients with personality disorders (PD) and (2) how different Axis-I and Axis-II pathology and treatment factors predict or moderate long-term outcome. All patients (n = 751) were admitted to short-term day hospital treatment, and 47% continued in group psychotherapy (mean duration 2.3 years). Symptom distress was assessed repeatedly over 5 years (Symptom Check List 90-R). Mixed models were chosen for statistical analyses. A main finding was the large variation in severity and longitudinal course of symptom distress.Five-year trends ranged from full symptom remission (31%) to pervasive, severe distress (36%). Cooccurring Axis-I disorders did not explain longitudinal variability of symptom distress. However, the presence and increasing severity of Axis-II pathology was strongly associated with more severe baseline symptom distress. Poor long-term outcomes were associated with the combination of avoidant PD and long treatment durations (>2.5 years), and borderline PD and short treatment durations (<0.4 years). Contrastingly, considerable symptom relief was associated with borderline PD and long treatment duration. In conclusion, the severity and longitudinal course of symptom distress among PD patients is closely associated with their personality structures and not sufficiently explained by Axis-I comorbidity. Copyright

Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a single measure of overall psychosocial impairment caused by mental factors, constituting Axis V of the Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental disorders, third and fourth versions. Despite its widespread use, several challenges and shortcomings have been discussed the last three decades. The current article describes some of the more serious challenges of the GAF manual, and presents a revised version more in accordance with the nature of this clinical construct. Some crucial aspects of the understanding of GAF and general guidelines for scoring are also discussed.