Follow-up psychotherapy outcome of patients with dependent, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders: A meta-analytic review
Assessing the number of patients who maintain their gains after the completion of therapy has been of interest to psychotherapy outcome researchers. The current study examines evidence related to the maintenance of treatment gains in individuals diagnosed with Cluster C personality disorders. Fifteen studies, published between 1982 and 2006, met the criteria for inclusion. The effect size standardized mean difference statistic was applied. In the majority of cases, most of the improvement occurred between pretreatment and posttreatment. However, social skills training often produced effect sizes that were larger for posttreatment follow-up. The study indicates that therapy gains are usually maintained at follow-up for Cluster C clients treated with cognitive-behavioral and psychodynamic approaches as well as social skills training. Uncertainty remains whether DPD, AVPD or OCPD patients benefited most from therapy.
Available from: Silvia M A A Evers
- "The evidence on treatment effectiveness for PDs that exists so far is mostly restricted to borderline PD (BPD) . Several reviews report large effect sizes of specialized psychological treatments for all PDs in general  and specifically for cluster-C . However, it should be noted that most studies into treatment of non-BPD PDs are of questionable methodological quality and show conflicting results. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite international guidelines describing psychotherapy as first choice for people with personality disorders (PDs), well-designed research on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy for PD is scarce. Schema therapy (ST) is a specific form of psychological treatment that proved to be effective for borderline PD. Randomized controlled studies on the effectiveness of ST for other PDs are lacking. Another not yet tested new specialized treatment is Clarification Oriented Psychotherapy (COP). The aim of this project is to perform an effectiveness study as well as an economic evaluation study (cost effectiveness as well as cost-utility) comparing ST versus COP versus treatment as usual (TAU). In this study, we focus on avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, paranoid, histrionic and narcissistic PD.
In a multicentered randomized controlled trial, ST, and COP as an extra experimental condition, are compared to TAU. Minimal 300 patients are recruited in 12 mental health institutes throughout the Netherlands, and receive an extensive screening prior to enrolment in the study. When eligible, they are randomly assigned to one of the intervention groups. An economic evaluation and a qualitative research study on patient and therapist perspectives on ST are embedded in this trial. Outcome assessments (both for clinical effectiveness and economic evaluation) take place at 6,12,18,24 and 36 months after start of treatment. Primary outcome is recovery from PD; secondary measures include general psychopathological complaints, social functioning and quality of life. Data for the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses are collected by using a retrospective cost interview. Information on patient and therapist perspectives is gathered using in-depth interviews and focus groups, and focuses on possible helpful and impeding aspects of ST.
This trial is the first to compare ST and COP head-to-head with TAU for people with a cluster C, paranoid, histrionic and/or narcissistic PD. By combining clinical effectiveness data with an economic evaluation and with direct information from primary stakeholders, this trial offers a complete and thorough view on ST as a contribution to the improvement of treatment for this PD patient group.
Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR566.
BMC Public Health 01/2012; 12(3):75. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-75 · 2.26 Impact Factor
Available from: Ann Kristin Knudsen
A Critical Introduction to DSM., First edited by G. Murray, 01/2011: chapter The personality disorders: pages 111-133; Nova Science Publishers, Inc,., ISBN: 978-1-61324-351-0
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.