Running a mentalization-based treatment (MBT) programme within a public community adult mental health service setting: a feasibility study

Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with 'Complex Emotional Needs' (CEN-our preferred working term for services for people with a "personality disorder" diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. The final search was conducted in November 2020.

RESULTS

We included 226 papers in all (210 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people's lives, peer support, or ways of designing effective services.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be helped when specialist therapies are available and when they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group.

Mentalization-Based Treatment in a Naturalistic Setting in Ireland: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the real-world effectiveness of mentalization-based treatment by assessing the clinical status of patients before and after completing the treatment program, which was nested within a general adult community mental health service, and by comparing these patients with a treatment-as-usual group.

METHODS

In this retrospective longitudinal naturalistic study, patients with a primary diagnosis of borderline personality disorder received either mentalization-based treatment (N=34) or treatment as usual (N=51). Data were collected from clinical charts and hospital databases. Presentations to the emergency department (ED), psychiatric and medical hospitalizations, and rates of loss to follow-up were analyzed for both groups.

RESULTS

In the 2 years after a course of mentalization-based treatment, significant reductions were noted in psychiatric hospitalizations (p=0.018). Compared with the treatment-as-usual group, the intervention group had significant reductions in ED presentations (p=0.004) and medical admissions (p=0.040), when the analysis controlled for age and gender. At study endpoint, the proportion of patients lost to follow-up in the treatment-as-usual group was larger (χ²=7.59, df=1, p=0.006), with three deaths in the treatment-as-usual group and none in the mentalization-based treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentalization-based treatment embedded within a community mental health team may have a positive effect, with significant improvements in unscheduled service use and notable reductions in ED presentations, hospitalizations, loss to follow-up, and mortality. There may be value in building on this study with more prospective, systematic research and patient-reported outcomes to assess the practical significance of this intervention in general psychiatric settings.