Standard set of patient-reported outcomes for personality disorder

Validating the Italian version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0): internal structure, temporal stability and construct validity

BACKGROUND

Contemporary models of personality assessment emphasize a dimensional rather than a categorical framework for measuring an individual's level of personality functioning. This viewpoint has also been incorporated into official diagnostic manuals, such as the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Assessment instruments for personality functioning according to the AMPD are increasingly being developed and used, but controversies remain regarding the two-factor (vs. one-factor) structure and psychometric properties of such instruments in different countries.

METHODS

To help fill these gaps in the literature, in this study we tested the internal structure, temporal stability, and construct validity of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0), a convenient self-report screening questionnaire of the AMPD level of personality functioning, on a final sample of 482 non-clinical adults (369 females, 112 males, one non-binary; age range = 18-83, M = 34.6, SD = 16.4). Internal structure of the Italian LPFS-BF 2.0 was tested by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Temporal stability and construct validity of the total score and of the Self and Interpersonal functioning subscale scores were tested using Pearson's correlations and Steiger's Test.

RESULTS

A two-factor structure for the LPFS-BF 2.0 was supported, and correlation analyses provided convergent and discriminant validity evidence for the total and the two Self and Interpersonal subscale scores against external self-report measures of problematic self and interpersonal functioning, overall personality dysfunction, general psychological symptoms and lower quality of life. As such, the total score and the two Self and Interpersonal subscales yielded correlations with external criteria of medium to large effect sizes (i.e., Pearson's r), all significant at the p < .001 level. Finally, the present study provides the first empirical assessment of the LPFS-BF 2.0 temporal stability over an interval of 11.5 weeks, demonstrating a high temporal stability for both the total scale and the two subscales (rs above .70 for all three, ps < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The Italian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 yielded similar psychometric properties to the original scale and other international adaptations, suggesting its utility for personality assessment research and practice.

How Do Personality Dysfunction and Maladaptive Personality Traits Predict Time to Premature Discontinuation of Pharmacological Treatment of ADHD?

OBJECTIVES

Non-adherence to medication is common in the adult ADHD clinical group. The goal of this pre-registered study was to examine whether the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD), generality personality dysfunction (LPFS-BF 2.0) or maladaptive personality traits (PID-5), can predict time to premature discontinuation of pharmacological treatment beyond other known factors.

METHODS

A sample of 284 adult patients with ADHD (60.6% female; Mage = 32.31 years) were investigated for medication adherence from 2018 to 2023, using time-to-event analytic methods.

RESULTS

Of the sample, 54 were found to have discontinued treatment prematurely without consulting their physician. Interestingly this group was prescribed considerably lower doses before discontinuation than adhering patients. General personality dysfunction and maladaptive antagonistic personality traits are implicated in varying degrees, with the specific maladaptive personality facets Intimacy Avoidance and Deceitfulness (PID-5) significantly predicting time to premature discontinuation of ADHD medication beyond other known reasons for non-adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The broader implication is that the emerging personality pathology models hold promise to predict non-adherence in the adult ADHD population.

Severity Benchmarks for the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) in Polish Adults

Background/Objectives: The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) is a self-report screening measure of personality impairments according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders and the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. Nevertheless, reliable cut-off scores that could help in clinical decision making are still lacking for many populations. The aim of this study was to develop severity benchmarks of the LPFS-BF 2.0 for a Polish population based on the item response theory (IRT) approach. Methods: A sample of Polish adults (n = 530) took part in the study. The participants assessed their personality functioning and pathological personality traits and provided information about psychiatric diagnosis and psychotherapy seeking. The severity benchmarks were developed using IRT and validated using mean and frequency comparisons between groups of different personality impairments according to the developed cut-offs. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a unidimensional model of the LPFS-BF 2.0. The graded IRT model indicated satisfactory item functioning for all LPFS-BF 2.0 items. The normative observed score thresholds at different latent severity levels of personality impairments were developed, and significant overall differences were found between the LPFS-BF 2.0 norm-based severity benchmarks in pathological personality traits and psychotherapy seeking. Conclusions: The IRT-based cut-offs for the LPFS-BF 2.0 identified individuals high on pathological personality traits (particularly disinhibition) and were predictive of psychotherapy seeking. The developed severity benchmarks allow for the interpretation of LPFS-BF 2.0 scores, supporting clinical diagnosis and relevant decision making in the Polish population. Practical implications for healthcare practice and research are being discussed.

Personality disorders: the impact of severity on societal costs

Personality disorders (PDs) are associated with high levels of societal costs. However, previous research has found limited or no evidence of unique contributions of individual PD categories on the overall level of societal costs. Recent research supports the validity of PD as a dimensional construct, and PD severity may be a better predictor of societal costs than specific PD categories. The aim of this study was to explore if PD severity could predict the level of societal costs among treatment-seeking patients with PDs, while controlling for the impact of comorbid mental health and substance use disorders. Four different severity indicators were explored: the number of PDs, the total number of PD criteria, the number of BPD criteria, and the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) from the alternative model in DSM-5. Participants (n = 798/794) were retrieved from the quality register of the Norwegian Network for Personality Disorders for the period 2017-2020. Societal costs were assessed using a structured interview covering the six-month period prior to assessment. Diagnoses and diagnostic criteria were determined using a semi-structured diagnostic interview (SCID-5-PD and M.I.N.I), and the LPFS was assessed by the LPFS-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) questionnaire. Statistics included multiple regression analyses. None of the severity indicators were significant predictors of overall societal costs among treatment-seeking patients, and effect sizes were small.

Age-Neutral Measurement Of Personality Functioning and Maladaptive Personality Traits

As previous studies have shown that personality disorder (PD) assessment in older adults is often hampered because assessment tools are tailored toward younger adults, establishing the age-neutrality of novel tools is crucial. This study primarily aimed to evaluate the age-neutrality of the Level of Personality Functioning Brief Form (LPFS-BF 2.0) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Modified + (PID-5-BF+M), using a sample of 254 community-dwelling adults. The analysis of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) demonstrated the age-neutrality of both instruments, with only 8.3% of LPFS-BF 2.0 items and 5.6% of PID-5-BF+M items exhibiting DIF. Differential Test Functioning (DTF) analyses revealed large DTF for the LPFS-BF 2.0 total score, indicating that age-specific norms might be necessary for this score. In summary, this study supports the use of these instruments in both older and younger adults, enhancing the assessment of PDs across the life span.

Conceptualizing adult ADHD with the DSM alternative model of personality disorder

Personality traits and personality disorders are related to ADHD and indicate dysfunction in clinical populations. The goals of this study were to examine how the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) a) indicates the presence of ADHD and b) communicates information about dysfunction over and above ADHD diagnosis. A sample of 330 adult psychiatric patients with and without ADHD (60% female; mean age 33 years) were assessed for ADHD symptoms, personality impairment, maladaptive personality traits, and functional life impairment domains. The maladaptive personality domain Disinhibition and particularly the lower order facet of Distractibility distinguished between individuals with psychiatric difficulties with and without ADHD. Distractibility is strongly related to the ADHD symptom dimension Inattentiveness, and Antagonism to Hyperactivity/impulsivity. General personality impairment augmented ADHD diagnosis in predicting life impairments. The AMPD has utility in ADHD assessments for diagnosis and prognosis.

The BRIDGE project: a feasibility randomised controlled trial of brief, intensive assessment and integrated formulation for young people (age 14-24) with features of borderline personality disorder (Protocol)

Background

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental disorder that is characterised by a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and mood as well as marked impulsivity. BPD has its peak incidence and prevalence from puberty through to emerging adulthood. BPD is a controversial diagnosis in young people. Commonly, young people with BPD are under-diagnosed, untreated, are not in employment or training and are estranged from their families. Yet, they have complex needs and are at high suicide risk.

Aim

To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (f-RCT) of a BRIDGE, a brief intervention programme for young people (age 14-24) with BPD symptoms (sub-threshold or threshold) in a community sample from Scotland, UK.

Method

Forty young people (age 14-24) meeting criteria for BPD symptoms, will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a) the BRIDGE intervention plus service-as-usual or b) service-as-usual alone. Follow up will be 12 weeks and 24 weeks post-intervention. The study is carried out between 2021 to 2024.

Outcome

The two primary outcomes of the MQ funded, BRIDGE project (f-RCT) are i. recruitment rates and ii. retention rates. The study will present the acceptability and appropriateness of our putative outcome measures for a future definitive randomised controlled trial (d-RCT).

Impact

Young people with BPD benefit from good clinical care and targeted intervention, however are regularly missed or mislabelled. The community based feasibility trial would provide initial evidence of variable needs of young people with complex needs, who maybe missed or excluded from services as they don't "fit" a model/diagnosis. Workable multi-agency service model proposed in the trial would be a major advance in understanding care pathways regardless of trial outcome.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrial.gov, identifier NCT05023447.

International Consensus on Standard Outcome Measures for Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Consensus Statement

Importance

The use of evidence-based standardized outcome measures is increasingly recognized as key to guiding clinical decision-making in mental health. Implementation of these measures into clinical practice has been hampered by lack of clarity on what to measure and how to do this in a reliable and standardized way.

Objective

To develop a core set of outcome measures for specific neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), communication disorders, specific learning disorders, and motor disorders, that may be used across a range of geographic and cultural settings.

Evidence Review

An international working group composed of clinical and research experts and service users (n = 27) was convened to develop a standard core set of accessible, valid, and reliable outcome measures for children and adolescents with NDDs. The working group participated in 9 video conference calls and 8 surveys between March 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. A modified Delphi approach defined the scope, outcomes, included measures, case-mix variables, and measurement time points. After development, the NDD set was distributed to professionals and service users for open review, feedback, and external validation.

Findings

The final set recommends measuring 12 outcomes across 3 key domains: (1) core symptoms related to the diagnosis; (2) impact, functioning, and quality of life; and (3) common coexisting problems. The following 14 measures should be administered at least every 6 months to monitor these outcomes: ADHD Rating Scale 5, Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Rating Scale, or Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale IV; Affective Reactivity Index; Children's Communication Checklist 2; Colorado Learning Disabilities Questionnaire; Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire; Developmental-Disability Children's Global Assessment Scale; Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire; Family Strain Index; Intelligibility in Context Scale; Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale or Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised and Social Responsiveness Scale; Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scales; and Yale Global Tic Severity Scale. The external review survey was completed by 32 professionals and 40 service users. The NDD set items were endorsed by more than 70% of professionals and service users in the open review survey.

Conclusions and Relevance

The NDD set covers outcomes of most concern to patients and caregivers. Use of the NDD set has the potential to improve clinical practice and research.

Practical implications of ICD-11 personality disorder classifications

Personality disorders (PDs) are associated with an inferior quality of life, poor health, and premature mortality, leading to heavy clinical, familial, and societal burdens. The International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11) makes a thorough, dramatic paradigm shift from the categorical to dimensional diagnosis of PD and expands the application into adolescence. We have reviewed the recent literature on practical implications, and severity and trait measures of ICD-11 defined PDs, by comparing with the alternative model of personality disorders in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), by mentioning the relevance in forensic and social concerns, and by referencing the developmental implication of life span, especially in adolescence. Study results strongly support the dimensional utility of ICD-11 PD diagnosis and application in adolescence which warrants early detection and intervention. More evidence-based research is needed along the ICD-11 PD application, such as its social relevance, measurement simplification, and longitudinal design of lifespan observation and treatment.

Interventions to improve the sleep quality of adults with personality disorder: A systematic review

Poor quality sleep is common for people who have a diagnosis of personality disorder (PD). Core cognitive and behavioral features of PD may cause and perpetuate poor sleep, but to date, no review has collated the evidence on the efficacy of interventions to improve sleep quality for people with PD. Structured searches for interventional studies among adults with PD and reporting validated measures of sleep quality were conducted up to November 2022 in multiple databases. Single-case reports were excluded. Study quality was assessed with standardized risk of bias tools. Unreported data was sought systematically from authors. This review was pre-registered with an international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021282105). Of the 3503 identified studies, nine met inclusion criteria, representing a range of psychological, pharmaceutical, and other interventions and outcome measures. Meta-analytic methods were not feasible because of the serious risk of bias in all studies, and results were therefore synthesized narratively. There is limited and low-quality evidence of the effects of a variety of interventions to improve the sleep quality of people living with PD. Further research might consider specifically including people diagnosed with PD in trials of sleep interventions and using sleep outcome measures in trials of established PD treatments.

Differentiation of Self and Interpersonal Functioning with the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0

Research on Criterion A of the alternative model for personality disorders is recently expanding and provides mixed results concerning the unidimensional operational definition of severity by the model, characterized by impaired self (identity and self-direction) and interpersonal (empathy and intimacy) functioning. Studies resulted in one, as well as two or more factor structures. The present study demonstrated the importance of the structural and relational differentiation of self and interpersonal dimensions of personality functioning. One thousand seventy-four participants (community and clinical mixed sample) completed the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form and the Questionnaire for the World Health Organization Disability Assessment. An LPFS-BF 2.0 two-factor structure with self and interpersonal functioning factors was corroborated by confirmatory factor analyses and bifactor modeling. Joint Exploratory Factor Analysis of the LPFS-BF 2.0 domains with maladaptive personality domains clearly differentiated the personality functioning factors. While the self-functioning factor was more closely linked to negative affect (and to disinhibition and psychoticism), the interpersonal functioning factor connected to detachment. Self-functioning predicted functional impairment along and beyond personality domains. The LPFS-BF 2.0 appears a useful tool for clinical routine monitoring of both self and interpersonal functioning.

Evaluating the Construct Validity of the Norwegian Version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 in a Large Clinical Sample

The Level of Personality Functioning - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) is a 12-item self-report questionnaire developed to gain a quick impression of the severity of personality pathology according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). The current study evaluated the construct validity and reliability of the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in a large clinical sample (N = 1673). Dimensionality was examined using confirmatory factor analysis and bifactor analysis followed by an analysis of distinctiveness of the subscales using the proportional reduction in mean squared error (PRMSE), and the concurrent validity was examined using correlations with self-report questionnaires and clinical interviews assessing PDs according to section II of the DSM-5. Taking the findings of the dimensionality and concurrent validity results together, we found moderate to good support for the use of total scores for the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0. We would advise against the use of subscale scores, since the subscales provided only a small amount of reliable unique variance.

International consensus on patient-centred outcomes in eating disorders

The effectiveness of mental health care can be improved through coordinated and wide-scale outcome measurement. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement has produced collaborative sets of outcome measures for various mental health conditions, but no universal guideline exists for eating disorders. This Position Paper presents a set of outcomes and measures for eating disorders as determined by 24 international experts from professional and lived experience backgrounds. An adapted Delphi technique was used, and results were assessed through an open review survey. Final recommendations suggest outcomes should be tracked across four domains: eating disorder behaviours and cognitions, physical health, co-occurring mental health conditions, and quality of life and social functioning. Outcomes are collected using three to five patient-reported measures. For children aged between 6 years and 12 years, the measures include the Children's Eating Attitude Test (or, for those with avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, the Eating Disorder in Youth Questionnaire), the KIDSCREEN-10, and the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Screener-25. For adolescents aged between 13 years and 17 years, the measures include the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q; or, for avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, the Nine-Item Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Screener [NIAS]), the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the two-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2), the seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), and the KIDSCREEN-10. For adults older than 18 years, measures include the EDE-Q (or, for avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, the NIAS), the PHQ-2, the PHQ-9, the GAD-2, the GAD-7, the Clinical Impairment Assessment, and the 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. These questionnaires should be supplemented by information on patient characteristics and circumstances (ie, demographic, historical, and clinical factors). International adoption of these guidelines will allow comparison of research and clinical interventions to determine which settings and interventions work best, and for whom.

Crisis and acute mental health care for people who have been given a diagnosis of a 'personality disorder': a systematic review

BACKGROUND

People who have been given a diagnosis of a 'personality disorder' need access to good quality mental healthcare when in crisis, but the evidence underpinning crisis services for this group is limited. We synthesised quantitative studies reporting outcomes for people with a 'personality disorder' diagnosis using crisis and acute mental health services.

METHODS

We searched OVID Medline, PsycInfo, PsycExtra, Web of Science, HMIC, CINAHL Plus, Clinical Trials and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that reported at least one clinical or social outcome following use of crisis and acute care for people given a 'personality disorder' diagnosis. We performed a narrative synthesis of evidence for each model of care found.

RESULTS

We screened 16,953 records resulting in 35 studies included in the review. Studies were published between 1987-2022 and conducted in 13 countries. Six studies were RCTs, the remainder were non randomised controlled studies or cohort studies reporting change over time. Studies were found reporting outcomes for crisis teams, acute hospital admission, acute day units, brief admission, crisis-focused psychotherapies in a number of settings, Mother and Baby units, an early intervention service and joint crisis planning. The evidence for all models of care except brief admission and outpatient-based psychotherapies was assessed as low or very low certainty.

CONCLUSION

The literature found was sparse and of low quality. There were no high-quality studies that investigated outcomes following use of crisis team or hospital admission for this group. Studies investigating crisis-focused psychological interventions showed potentially promising results.

ICD-11 personality disorder features in the danish general population: Cut-offs and prevalence rates for severity levels

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence rates and correlates of personality disorders (PD) are relevant to health care policy and planning.

OBJECTIVES

To present normative data for self-reported ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) features including tentative cut-off scores and prevalence rates for severity levels along with psychosocial correlates.

METHODS

The Personality Disorder Severity ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) scale and criterion measures of impairment were administered to a social-demographically stratified sample of Danish citizens (N = 8,941) of which 3,044 delivered complete data. Item-Response Theory (IRT) was employed to indicate cut-offs based on standard deviations from the latent mean.

RESULTS

The unidimensionality of the PDS-ICD-11 score was supported and IRT analysis suggested norm-based thresholds at latent severity levels. Expected associations with criterion measures were found.

CONCLUSION

The normative data portray ICD-11 PD features in the general population and allow for interpretation of PDS-ICD-11 scores (e.g., scores of 12, 16, and 19 may indicate mild, moderate, and severe dysfunction), which may inform health care policy and planning. A total weighted prevalence of 6.9 % of the Danish general population is estimated to have clinically significant personality dysfunction, proportionally composed of Mild (4.8 %), Moderate (1.2 %), and Severe (0.9 %) levels. Future research should corroborate these findings using relevant clinical samples and methods.

The Development and Validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-8: Providing Respondents with a Uniform Context That Elicits Thinking About Situations Requiring Emotion Regulation

Emotion regulation difficulties are associated with a range of psychological disorders. A widely used measure of emotion regulation is the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-36). There are also three shortened DERS versions. Consistent with current efforts to build very brief versions of measures, the aim of this research is to develop a briefer DERS and evaluate its construct validity. Study 1 uses IRT methods coupled with content considerations to develop a briefer unidimensional DERS. Previous attempts to shorten the DERS have not considered how frame of reference may influence responses to items. The new DERS-8 includes only items prefaced with the phrase "When I'm upset," to provide respondents with a uniform context that elicits thinking about situations requiring regulation of negative emotion; answers to items are more likely to represent affect, thought, and actions in response to such situations. Study 2 showed that the DERS-8 performed well in an IRT analysis among adolescents with psychiatric disorders and showed similar group differences, sensitivity to change, and correlations with other variables compared to existing DERS versions, in both healthy adult and clinical adolescent samples. The DERS-8 offers a very brief unidimensional measure of difficulties in emotion regulation for adolescents and adults.

Evaluation of randomized controlled trials: a primer and tutorial for mental health researchers

BACKGROUND

Considered one of the highest levels of evidence, results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain an essential building block in mental health research. They are frequently used to confirm that an intervention "works" and to guide treatment decisions. Given their importance in the field, it is concerning that the quality of many RCT evaluations in mental health research remains poor. Common errors range from inadequate missing data handling and inappropriate analyses (e.g., baseline randomization tests or analyses of within-group changes) to unduly interpretations of trial results and insufficient reporting. These deficiencies pose a threat to the robustness of mental health research and its impact on patient care. Many of these issues may be avoided in the future if mental health researchers are provided with a better understanding of what constitutes a high-quality RCT evaluation.

METHODS

In this primer article, we give an introduction to core concepts and caveats of clinical trial evaluations in mental health research. We also show how to implement current best practices using open-source statistical software.

RESULTS

Drawing on Rubin's potential outcome framework, we describe that RCTs put us in a privileged position to study causality by ensuring that the potential outcomes of the randomized groups become exchangeable. We discuss how missing data can threaten the validity of our results if dropouts systematically differ from non-dropouts, introduce trial estimands as a way to co-align analyses with the goals of the evaluation, and explain how to set up an appropriate analysis model to test the treatment effect at one or several assessment points. A novice-friendly tutorial is provided alongside this primer. It lays out concepts in greater detail and showcases how to implement techniques using the statistical software R, based on a real-world RCT dataset.

DISCUSSION

Many problems of RCTs already arise at the design stage, and we examine some avoidable and unavoidable "weak spots" of this design in mental health research. For instance, we discuss how lack of prospective registration can give way to issues like outcome switching and selective reporting, how allegiance biases can inflate effect estimates, review recommendations and challenges in blinding patients in mental health RCTs, and describe problems arising from underpowered trials. Lastly, we discuss why not all randomized trials necessarily have a limited external validity and examine how RCTs relate to ongoing efforts to personalize mental health care.

A systematic review of studies reporting the development of core outcome sets for use in routine care

OBJECTIVES

Core outcome sets (COS) represent the minimum health outcomes to be measured for a given health condition. Interest is growing in using COS within routine care to support delivery of patient-focused care. This review aims to systematically map COS developed for routine care to understand their scope, stakeholder involvement, and development methods.

METHODS

Medline (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science Core collection were searched for studies reporting development of COS for routine care. Data on scope, methods, and stakeholder groups were analyzed in subgroups defined by setting.

RESULTS

Screening 25,301 records identified 262 COS: 164 for routine care only and 98 for routine care and research. Nearly half of the COS (112/254, 44%) were developed with patients, alongside input from experts in registries, insurance, legal, outcomes measurement, and performance management. Research publications were often searched to generate an initial list of outcomes (115/198, 58%) with few searching routine health records (47/198, 24%).

CONCLUSION

An increasing number of COS is being developed for routine care. Although involvement of patient stakeholders has increased in recent years, further improvements are needed. Methodology and scope are broadly similar to COS for research but implementation of the final set is a greater consideration during development.

Which psychotherapy is most effective and acceptable in the treatment of adults with a (sub)clinical borderline personality disorder? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

A broad range of psychotherapies have been proposed and evaluated in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), but the question which specific type of psychotherapy is most effective remains unanswered. In this study, two network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted investigating the comparative effectiveness of psychotherapies on (1) BPD severity and (2) suicidal behaviour (combined rate). Study drop-out was included as a secondary outcome. Six databases were searched until 21 January 2022, including RCTs on the efficacy of any psychotherapy in adults (⩾18 years) with a diagnosis of (sub)clinical BPD. Data were extracted using a predefined table format. PROSPERO ID:CRD42020175411. In our study, a total of 43 studies (N = 3273) were included. We found significant differences between several active comparisons in the treatment of (sub)clinical BPD, however, these findings were based on very few trials and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Some therapies were more efficacious compared to GT or TAU. Furthermore, some treatments more than halved the risk of attempted suicide and committed suicide (combined rate), reporting RRs around 0.5 or lower, however, these RRs were not statistically significantly better compared to other therapies or to TAU. Study drop-out significantly differed between some treatments. In conclusion, no single treatment seems to be the best choice to treat people with BPD compared to other treatments. Nevertheless, psychotherapies for BPD are perceived as first-line treatments, and should therefore be investigated further on their long-term effectiveness, preferably in head-to-head trials. DBT was the best connected treatment, providing solid evidence of its effectiveness.

Improvement of personality functioning among people treated within personality disorder mental health services. A longitudinal, observational study

Objective

Evidence-based personality disorder (PD) treatments are dominated by interventions targeting Borderline PD, although clinical populations characteristically include different PD features and severity. Personality functioning is a new concept intended to capture common features across PDs. This study aimed to investigate longitudinal improvement of personality functioning in a clinical sample assigned to PD treatment.

Method

An observational, large, longitudinal study of patients in PD treatments on specialist mental health service levels (N = 1,051). DSM-5 PDs were systematically assessed on referral. Personality functioning was repeatedly assessed (LPFS-BF-2.0), supplemented by symptom distress (anxiety: PHQ-GAD-7, depression: PHQ-9), and social/occupational activity (WSAS, work/study activity). Statistics were linear mixed models.

Results

Thirty per cent had personality difficulties below PD threshold. Among PDs, 31% had Borderline (BPD), 39% Avoidant (AvPD), 15% not otherwise specified, 15% other PDs, and 24% > one PD. More severe initial LPFS-BF was associated with younger age, presence of PD and increasing number of total PD criteria. Across PD conditions, LPFS-BF, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 improved significantly (overall effect size 0.9). Mean duration of PD treatment was 15 (SD 9) months. Drop-out rates were low (12%). LPFS-BF improvement-rates were higher for BPD. Younger age was moderately associated with slower PHQ-9 improvement. Work/study activity was initially poor, poorer levels associated with AvPD and younger age, and improvement was non-significant across PD conditions. AvPD was associated with slower WSAS improvement-rates.

Conclusion

Personality functioning improved across PD conditions. The results highlight BPD improvements. The study points to challenges concerning AvPD treatment, poor occupational activity and age-related differences.

Normative data for the LPFS-BF 2.0 derived from the Danish general population and relationship with psychosocial impairment

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 is a frequently used self-report inventory that may be used to screen for self- and interpersonal dysfunction according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders. Nevertheless, reliable norms and cut-off scores to aid interpretation and clinical decision making are still lacking. The LPFS-BF and relevant impairment measures were administered to a sociodemographically stratisfied sample of 2,002 adults from the general Danish population of whom 713 individuals eventually delivered data for inclusion in the present study. The unidimensionality of the LPFS-BF scores was established using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Item-Response Theory (IRT) analysis indicated satisfactory item functioning for all 12 items and suggested normative observed score thresholds at different latent severity levels. Meaningful associations were found between the LPFS-BF norm-based cut-off scores, quality of life, and social and occupational functioning. This study presented the first normative data for LPFS-BF, which specifically applies to Denmark but likely also other socioeconomically comparable Nordic and Western societies. These results allow for interpretation of LPFS-BF scores and clinical decision-making. Future research should corroborate these findings and compare them to scores obtained in other general population samples.

Early Intervention for Personality Disorder

Both the DSM-5 Section III Alternative Model for Personality Disorders and the ICD-11 have introduced a genuinely developmental approach to personality disorder. Among young people with personality disorder, compelling evidence demonstrates a high burden of disease, substantial morbidity, and premature mortality, as well as response to treatment. Yet, early diagnosis and treatment for the disorder have struggled to emerge from its identity as a controversial diagnosis to a mainstream focus for mental health services. Key reasons for this include stigma and discrimination, lack of knowledge about and failure to identify personality disorder among young people, along with the belief that personality disorder must always be addressed through lengthy and specialized individual psychotherapy programs. In fact, evidence suggests that early intervention for personality disorder should be a focus for all mental health clinicians who see young people and is feasible by using widely available clinical skills.

Clinical Implications of ICD-11 for Diagnosing and Treating Personality Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The International Classification of Diseases 11th revision (ICD-11) introduced a new approach to personality disorders and related traits. This paper reviews recent literature on the assessment of ICD-11 personality disorders and implications for clinical diagnosis, decision-making, and treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

We reviewed findings on two measures developed for the ICD-11 model of personality dysfunction and six inventories for the ICD-11 trait specifiers. The psychometric qualities of these tools are promising, and they allow for both rapid screening and fine-grained assessment. Implications for clinical diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders are reviewed including utility for forensic practice. Based on evidence and our experience, we provide some recommendations for severity- and trait-informed interventions. Initial evidence supports the available instruments for assessing ICD-11 personality disorders. More research is needed including development of clinician-rating forms and diagnostic interviews as well as treatment protocols and trials based on the new ICD-11 classification.

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: a focused systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD).

AIMS

To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely.

METHOD

We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition.

RESULTS

Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P < 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P < 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD -0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference -8.49, P < 0.00001), manual-assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference -3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD -0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD -0.48, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings.

The challenge of ensuring affordability, sustainability, consistency, and adaptability in the common metrics agenda

Mental health research grapples with research waste and stunted field progression caused by inconsistent outcome measurement across studies and clinical settings, which means there is no common language for considering findings. Although recognising that no gold standard measures exist and that all existing measures are flawed in one way or another, anxiety and depression research is spearheading a common metrics movement to harmonise measurement, with several initiatives over the past 5 years recommending the consistent use of specific scales to allow read-across of measurements between studies. For this approach to flourish, however, common metrics must be acceptable and adaptable to a range of contexts and populations, and global access should be as easy and affordable as possible, including in low-income countries. Within a measurement landscape dominated by fixed proprietary measures and with competing views of what should be measured, achieving this goal poses a range of challenges. In this Personal View, we consider tensions between affordability, sustainability, consistency, and adaptability that, if not addressed, risk undermining the common metrics agenda. We outline a three-pronged way forward that involves funders taking more direct responsibility for measure development and dissemination; a move towards managing measure dissemination and adaptation via open-access measure hubs; and transitioning from fixed questionnaires to item banks. We argue that now is the time to start thinking of mental health metrics as 21st century tools to be co-owned and co-created by the mental health community, with support from dedicated infrastructure, coordinating bodies, and funders.

Common patient-reported outcomes across ICHOM Standard Sets: the potential contribution of PROMIS®

BACKGROUND

The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) develops condition-specific Standard Sets of outcomes to be measured in clinical practice for value-based healthcare evaluation. Standard Sets are developed by different working groups, which is inefficient and may lead to inconsistencies in selected PROs and PROMs. We aimed to identify common PROs across ICHOM Standard Sets and examined to what extend these PROs can be measured with a generic set of PROMs: the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®).

METHODS

We extracted all PROs and recommended PROMs from 39 ICHOM Standard Sets. Similar PROs were categorized into unique PRO concepts. We examined which of these PRO concepts can be measured with PROMIS.

RESULTS

A total of 307 PROs were identified in 39 ICHOM Standard Sets and 114 unique PROMs are recommended for measuring these PROs. The 307 PROs could be categorized into 22 unique PRO concepts. More than half (17/22) of these PRO concepts (covering about 75% of the PROs and 75% of the PROMs) can be measured with a PROMIS measure.

CONCLUSION

Considerable overlap was found in PROs across ICHOM Standard Sets, and large differences in terminology used and PROMs recommended, even for the same PROs. We recommend a more universal and standardized approach to the selection of PROs and PROMs. Such an approach, focusing on a set of core PROs for all patients, measured with a system like PROMIS, may provide more opportunities for patient-centered care and facilitate the uptake of Standard Sets in clinical practice.