The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Group Schema Therapy Rating Scale – Revised

Development and evaluation of a fidelity tool in a post-discharge responsive parenting intervention program for very preterm born children

The TOP program is a fully implemented responsive parenting intervention for very preterm born infants. Fidelity monitoring of interventions is important for preserving program adherence, impact outcomes and to make evidence-based adaptations. The aim of this study was to develop a fidelity tool for the TOP program following an iterative and co-creative process and subsequently evaluate the reliability of the tool. Three consecutive phases were carried out. Phase I: Initial development and pilot testing two methods namely self-report and video based observation. Phase II: Adaptations and refinements. Phase III: Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the tool based on 20 intervention videos rated by three experts.The interrater reliability of the adherence and competence subscales was good (ICC.81 to .84) and varied from moderate to excellent for specific items (ICC between .51 and .98). The FITT displayed a high correlation (Spearman's rho.79 to.82) between the subscales and total impression item. The co-creative and iterative process resulted in a clinical useful and reliable tool for evaluating fidelity in the TOP program. This study offers insights in the practical steps in the development of a fidelity assessment tool which can be used by other intervention developers.

Design of an RCT on cost-effectiveness of group schema therapy versus individual schema therapy for patients with Cluster-C personality disorder: the QUEST-CLC study protocol

BACKGROUND

Given the high prevalence of Cluster-C Personality Disorders (PDs) in clinical populations, disease burden, high societal costs and poor prognosis of comorbid disorders, a major gain in health care can be achieved if Cluster-C PDs are adequately treated. The only controlled cost-effectiveness study published so far found Individual Schema Therapy (IST) to be superior to Treatment as Usual (TAU). Group ST (GST) might improve cost-effectiveness as larger numbers can be treated in (>50%) less time compared to IST. However, to date there is no RCT supporting its (cost-) effectiveness. The overall aim of this study is to assess the evidence for GST for Cluster-C PDs and to improve treatment allocation for individual patients. Three main questions are addressed: 1) Is GST for Cluster-C PDs (cost-)effective compared to TAU? 2) Is GST for Cluster-C PDs (cost-) effective compared to IST? 3) Which patient-characteristics predict better response to GST, IST, or TAU?

METHODS

In a multicenter RCT, the treatment conditions GST, IST, and TAU are compared in 378 Cluster-C PD patients within 10 sites. GST and IST follow treatment protocols and are completed within 1 year. TAU is the optimal alternative treatment available at the site according to regular procedures. Severity of the Cluster-C PD is the primary outcome, assessed with clinical interviews by independent raters blind for treatment. Functioning and wellbeing are important secondary outcomes. Assessments take place at week 0 (baseline), 17 (mid-GST), 34 (post-GST), 51 (post-booster sessions of GST), and 2 years (FU). Patient characteristics predicting better response to a specific treatment are studied, e.g., childhood trauma, autistic features, and introversion. A tool supporting patients and clinicians in matching treatment to patient will be developed. An economic evaluation investigates the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility from a societal perspective. A process evaluation by qualitative methods explores experiences of participants, loved ones and therapists regarding recovery, quality of life, and improving treatment.

DISCUSSION

This study will determine the (cost-)effectiveness of treatments for Cluster-C PDs regarding treatment type as well as optimal matching of patient to treatment and deliver insight into which aspects help Cluster-C-PD patients recover and create a fulfilling life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register: NL9209 . Registered on 28-01-2021.

Effectiveness of Predominantly Group Schema Therapy and Combined Individual and Group Schema Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

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 PARTICIPANTS

In 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 MEASURES

The 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.

RESULTS

Of 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 RELEVANCE

In 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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR2392.

Effectiveness of brief schema group therapy for borderline personality disorder symptoms: a randomized pilot study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Schema group therapy is a potentially cost-effective treatment for borderline personality disorder (BPD). We piloted the feasibility and effectiveness of a 20-session schema group therapy without individual therapy among psychiatric BPD outpatients in a randomized pilot study registered as a clinical trial (ISRCTN76381242).

METHODS

Altogether 42 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with BPD were randomized 2:1 to a 20-session weekly schema group therapy plus treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 28) vs. a control group with TAU alone (n = 14). The primary outcome was decline of BPD symptoms in the short Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23) score. Secondary outcomes were decline in symptoms of anxiety, depression, alcohol use, and improvement in functioning and schema modes. Two external experts evaluated validity of the intervention based on videotaped sessions.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 schema group therapy patients (82%) and 12 controls (86%) completed their treatment. Treatment validity good or very good. However, no significant differences emerged in the primary outcome mean BSL-23 decline (6.95 [SE 5.91] in group schema therapy vs. 12.55 [4.85] in TAU) or in any of the secondary outcome measures.

LIMITATIONS

Despite randomization, the TAU subgroup had non-significantly higher baseline scores in most measures. Small sample size predisposing to type II errors; reliance on self-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Schema group therapy was feasible for psychiatric outpatients with BPD. However, in this small pilot study we did not find it more effective than TAU. Effectiveness of this short intervention remains open.