No abstract

BackgroundBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe and highly prevalent mental disorder. Schema therapy (ST) has been found effective in the treatment of BPD and is commonly delivered through an individual format. A group format (group schema therapy, GST) has also been developed. GST has been found to speed up and amplify the treatment effects found for individual ST. Delivery in a group format may lead to improved cost-effectiveness. An important question is how GST compares to treatment as usual (TAU) and what format for delivery of schema therapy (format A; intensive group therapy only, or format B; a combination of group and individual therapy) produces the best outcomes.Methods/DesignAn international, multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted with a minimum of fourteen participating centres. Each centre will recruit multiple cohorts of at least sixteen patients. GST formats as well as the orders in which they are delivered to successive cohorts will be balanced. Within countries that contribute an uneven number of sites, the orders of GST formats will be balanced within a difference of one. The RCT is designed to include a minimum of 448 patients with BPD. The primary clinical outcome measure will be BPD severity. Secondary clinical outcome measures will include measures of BPD and general psychiatric symptoms, schemas and schema modes, social functioning and quality of life. Furthermore, an economic evaluation that consists of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be performed using a societal perspective. Lastly, additional investigations will be carried out that include an assessment of the integrity of GST, a qualitative study on patients’ and therapists’ experiences with GST, and studies on variables that might influence the effectiveness of GST.DiscussionThis trial will compare GST to TAU for patients with BPD as well as two different formats for the delivery of GST. By combining an evaluation of clinical effectiveness, an economic evaluation and additional investigations, it will contribute to an evidence-based understanding of which treatment should be offered to patients with BPD from clinical, economic, and stakeholders’ perspectives.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR2392. Registered 25 June 2010.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-014-0319-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IMPORTANCE Schema therapy (ST), delivered either in an individual or group format, has been compared with other active treatments for borderline personality disorder (BPD). To our knowledge, the 2 formats have not been compared with treatment as usual (TAU) or with each other. Such comparisons help determine best treatment practices. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether ST is more effectively delivered in a predominantly group or combined individual and group format and whether ST is more effective than optimal TAU for BPD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this multicenter, 3-arm randomized clinical trial conducted at 15 sites in 5 countries (Australia, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, and the UK), outpatients aged 18 to 65 years who had BPD were recruited between June 29, 2010, and May 18, 2016, to receive either predominantly group ST (PGST), combined individual and group ST (IGST), or optimal TAU. Data were analyzed from June 4, 2019, to December 29, 2021.INTERVENTIONS At each site, cohorts of 16 to 18 participants were randomized 1:1 to PGST vs TAU or IGST vs TAU. Both ST formats were delivered over 2 years, with 2 sessions per week in year 1 and the frequency gradually decreasing during year 2. Assessments were collected by blinded assessors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the change in BPD severity over time, assessed with the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index (BPDSI) total score. Treatment retention was analyzed as a secondary outcome using generalized linear mixed model survival analysis. RESULTSOf 495 participants (mean [SD] age, 33.6 [9.4] years; 426 [86.2%] female), 246 (49.7%) received TAU, 125 (25.2%) received PGST, and 124 (25.0%) received IGST (1 of whom later withdrew consent). PGST and IGST combined were superior to TAU with regard to reduced BPD severity (Cohen d, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.29-1.18; P < .001). For this outcome, IGST was superior to TAU (Cohen d, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.57-1.71; P < .001) and PGST (Cohen d, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.09-1.59; P = .03), whereas PGST did not differ significantly from TAU (Cohen d, 0.30; 95% CI, −0.29 to 0.89; P = .32). Treatment retention was greater in the IGST arm than in the PGST (1 year: 0.82 vs 0.72; 2 years: 0.74 vs. 0.62) and TAU (1 year: 0.82 vs 0.73; 2 years: 0.74 vs 0.64) arms, and there was no significant difference between the TAU and PGST arms (1 year: 0.73 vs 0.72; 2 years: 0.64 vs 0.62). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial, IGST was more effective and had greater treatment retention compared with TAU and PGST. These findings suggest that IGST is the preferred ST format, with high retention and continuation of improvement in BPD severity after the completion of treatment.

No abstract

Several studies have examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers’ mental health, but only a few have investigated its detrimental effect on the mental well-being of mental health workers (MHWs). Background: The current study aimed to explore the effect of the fear of COVID-19 (FSV-19) on professional quality of life dimensions, namely compassion satisfaction (CS), burnout (BO), and secondary traumatic stress (STS) in MHWs above and beyond sociodemographic and professional factors. Methods: Hierarchical linear regression models were employed to examine the relationship of extreme FSV-19 with CS, BO, and STS in MHWs (n = 224), after considering sociodemographic variables as potential confounding factors. Extreme FSV-19 was operationalized as a binary variable with a cut-off score of ≥16.5 considered as extreme fear. Results: We found that extreme FSV-19 in MHWs is linked with increased compassion fatigue (BO and STS), and this relationship is exacerbated by younger age in regard to BO and by female gender concerning STS. CS remains unaffected by severe FCV-19, and it is higher in older participants. Conclusion: Organizational support is required to protect MHWs’ mental well-being and ensure the quality of care they provide during prolonged crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Measures that intensify a sense of safety, protection, and control against COVID-19 infections in mental health services should be included in the recommendations that may reduce BO and STS among MHWs.