We examined the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adult Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a multilevel meta-analysis, including all trial types (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020111351). We tested several predictors, including trial- and outcome type (continuous or dichotomous), setting, BPD symptom domain and mean age. We included 87 studies (N = 5881) from searches between 2013 and 2019 in four databases. We controlled for differing treatment lengths and a logarithmic relationship between treatment duration and effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding outliers and by prioritizing total scale scores when both subscale and total scores were reported. Schema Therapy, Mentalization-Based Treatment and reduced Dialectical Behavior Therapy were associated with higher effect sizes than average, and treatment-as-usual with lower effect sizes. General severity and affective instability showed the strongest improvement, dissociation, anger, impulsivity and suicidality/self-injury the least. Treatment effectiveness decreased as the age of participants increased. Dichotomous outcomes were associated to larger effects, and analyses based on last observation carried forward to smaller effects. Compared to the average, the highest reductions were found for certain specialized psychotherapies. All BPD domains improved, though not equally. These findings have a high generalizability. However, causal conclusions cannot be drawn, although the design type did not influence the results.

No abstract

Background Trauma-focused treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are commonly delivered either once or twice a week. Initial evidence suggests that session frequency affects treatment response, but very few trials have investigated the effect of session frequency. The present study’s aim is to compare treatment outcomes of twice-weekly versus once-weekly sessions of two treatments for PTSD related to childhood trauma, imagery rescripting (ImRs) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). We hypothesize that both treatments will be more effective when delivered twice than once a week. How session frequency impacts treatment response, whether treatment type moderates the frequency effect, and which treatment type and frequency works best for whom will also be investigated. Methods The IREM-Freq trial is an international multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in mental healthcare centers across Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 220 participants, who will be randomized to one of four conditions: (1) EMDR once a week, (2) EMDR twice a week, (3) ImRs once a week, or (4) ImRs twice a week. Treatment consists of 12 sessions. Data are collected at baseline until one-year follow-up. The primary outcome measure is clinician-rated PTSD symptom severity. Secondary outcome measures include self-reported PTSD symptom severity, complex PTSD symptoms, trauma-related cognitions and emotions, depressive symptoms, dissociation, quality of life, and functioning. Process measures include memory, learning, therapeutic alliance, motivation, reluctance, and avoidance. Additional investigations will focus on predictors of treatment outcome and PTSD severity, change mechanisms of EMDR and ImRs, the role of emotions, cognitions, and memory, the optimization of treatment selection, learned helplessness, perspectives of patients and therapists, the network structure of PTSD symptoms, and sudden treatment gains. Discussion This study will extend our knowledge on trauma-focused treatments for PTSD related to childhood trauma and, more specifically, the importance of session frequency. More insight into the optimal session frequency could lead to improved treatment outcomes and less dropout, and in turn, to a reduction of healthcare costs. Moreover, the additional investigations will broaden our understanding of how the treatments work and variables that affect treatment outcome. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NL6965, registered 25/04/2018.

Background Dropout from psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a notorious problem. We investigated whether treatment, treatment format, treatment setting, substance use exclusion criteria, proportion males, mean age, country, and other variables influenced dropout. Methods From Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Psycinfo and other sources, 111 studies (159 treatment arms, N = 9100) of psychotherapy for non-forensic adult patients with BPD were included. Dropout per quarter during one year of treatment was analyzed on participant level with multilevel survival analysis, to deal with multiple predictors, nonconstant dropout chance over time, and censored data. Multiple imputation was used to estimate quarter of drop-out if unreported. Sensitivity analyses were done by excluding DBT-arms with deviating push-out rules. Results Dropout was highest in the first quarter of treatment. Schema therapy had the lowest dropout overall, and mentalization-based treatment in the first two quarters. Community treatment by experts had the highest dropout. Moreover, individual therapy had lowest dropout, group therapy highest, with combined formats in-between. Other variables such as age or substance-use exclusion criteria were not associated with dropout. Conclusion The findings do not support claims that all treatments are equal, and indicate that efforts to reduce dropout should focus on early stages of treatment and on group treatment.

Sudden gains, defined as large and stable improvements in symptom severity during psychological treatment, have consistently been found to be associated with better outcomes across treatments and diagnoses. Yet, insights on coherent predictors of sudden gains and on emotional changes around sudden gains in post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are lacking. We aimed at replicating a measure of intraindividual variability as a predictor for sudden gains and testing its independence from change during treatment. Furthermore, we expected changes in emotions of guilt, shame and disgust prior to sudden gains to predict sudden gains. Data from a pre‐registered randomized controlled trial (RCT) of eye‐movement desensitization and reprocessing (emdr) and Imagery Rescripting (ImRs) for PTSD in 155 adult survivors of childhood abuse were used. Intraindividual variability of PTSD symptoms in both treatments did not predict sudden gains status and was not independent of change during treatment. In the EMDR condition, levels of shame during treatment predicted sudden gains and shame decreased shortly before a sudden gain in both treatments. Reductions in all emotions during sudden gains were significantly higher for participants with sudden gains than for comparable intervals in non‐sudden gainers. Our findings do not support the predictive validity of intraindividual variability for sudden gains. The decrease of guilt, shame and disgust during sudden gains warrants further research on their role as a mechanism of treatment change for PTSD.

Background: Guilt and shame regulate basic human processes such as social cognition and relations. Both emotions are also involved in the aetiology and maintenance of trauma-related mental disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, a concise scale that adequately captures these constructs is currently lacking, impeding research efforts to understand them more thoroughly. Objective: To this end, we developed the eight-item Guilt and Shame Questionnaire (GSQ-8) in English, German, and Dutch. Method: We examined the reliability and validity of the GSQ-8 in a clinical sample of adults seeking treatment for childhood-trauma-related posttraumatic stress disorder ( n = 209), a sample of adults who had suffered at least one traumatic life event reporting different levels of PTSD symptoms ( n = 556), and a non-clinical sample of adults ( n = 156). Results: Theory-driven confirmatory factor analyses confirmed two correlated latent factors guilt and shame with four items for each factor. Across all samples, two-factor models yielded better model fit than one-factor solutions. Measurement invariance across the three samples, gender, and Dutch and German language was mostly established. Guilt and shame composite scores were associated with PTSD symptoms, depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, mental health-related quality of life, and self-blame, thus supporting scale validity. Importantly, both subscales predicted PTSD symptoms, depression, life satisfaction, and mental health-related quality of life over and above cognitions of self-blame. Conclusions: The GSQ-8 is a parsimonious, reliable, and valid tool to assess guilt and shame in clinical, sub-clinical, and non-clinical populations, allowing applications across a broad range of research questions.

No abstract