The Effectiveness of Dialectical Behavior Therapy Compared to Schema Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 16.3 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-10 DOI:10.1159/000538404
Nele Assmann, Anja Schaich, Arnoud Arntz, Till Wagner, Philipp Herzog, Daniel Alvarez-Fischer, Valerija Sipos, Kamila Jauch-Chara, Jan Philipp Klein, Michael Hüppe, Ulrich Schweiger, Eva Fassbinder
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Dialectical Behavior Therapy Compared to Schema Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Nele Assmann, Anja Schaich, Arnoud Arntz, Till Wagner, Philipp Herzog, Daniel Alvarez-Fischer, Valerija Sipos, Kamila Jauch-Chara, Jan Philipp Klein, Michael Hüppe, Ulrich Schweiger, Eva Fassbinder","doi":"10.1159/000538404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), there is empirical support for both dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and schema therapy (ST); these treatments have never been compared directly. This study examines whether either of them is more effective than the other in treating patients with BPD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized, parallel-group, rater-blind clinical trial, outpatients aged between 18 and 65 years with a primary diagnosis of BPD were recruited in a tertiary outpatient treatment center (Lübeck, Germany). Participants were randomized to DBT or ST with one individual and one group session per week over 1.5 years. The primary outcome was the BPD symptom severity assessed with the mean score of the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index at 1-year naturalistic follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between November 26, 2014, and December 14, 2018, we enrolled 164 patients (mean age = 33.7 [SD = 10.61] years). Of these, 81 (49.4%) were treated with ST and 83 (50.6%) with DBT, overall, 130 (79.3%) were female. Intention-to-treat analysis with generalized linear mixed models did not show a significant difference at 1-year naturalistic follow-up between DBT and ST for the BPDSI total score (mean difference 3.32 [95% CI: -0.58-7.22], p = 0.094, d = -24 [-0.69; 0.20]) with lower scores for DBT. Pre-to-follow-up effect sizes were large in both groups (DBT: d = 2.45 [1.88-3.02], ST: d = 1.78 [1.26-2.29]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients in both treatment groups showed substantial improvements indicating that even severely affected patients with BPD and various comorbid disorders can be treated successfully with DBT and ST. An additional non-inferiority trial is needed to show if both treatments are equally effective. The trial was retrospectively registered on the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00011534 without protocol changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":20744,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","volume":" ","pages":"249-263"},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11332312/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538404","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), there is empirical support for both dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and schema therapy (ST); these treatments have never been compared directly. This study examines whether either of them is more effective than the other in treating patients with BPD.

Methods: In this randomized, parallel-group, rater-blind clinical trial, outpatients aged between 18 and 65 years with a primary diagnosis of BPD were recruited in a tertiary outpatient treatment center (Lübeck, Germany). Participants were randomized to DBT or ST with one individual and one group session per week over 1.5 years. The primary outcome was the BPD symptom severity assessed with the mean score of the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index at 1-year naturalistic follow-up.

Results: Between November 26, 2014, and December 14, 2018, we enrolled 164 patients (mean age = 33.7 [SD = 10.61] years). Of these, 81 (49.4%) were treated with ST and 83 (50.6%) with DBT, overall, 130 (79.3%) were female. Intention-to-treat analysis with generalized linear mixed models did not show a significant difference at 1-year naturalistic follow-up between DBT and ST for the BPDSI total score (mean difference 3.32 [95% CI: -0.58-7.22], p = 0.094, d = -24 [-0.69; 0.20]) with lower scores for DBT. Pre-to-follow-up effect sizes were large in both groups (DBT: d = 2.45 [1.88-3.02], ST: d = 1.78 [1.26-2.29]).

Conclusion: Patients in both treatment groups showed substantial improvements indicating that even severely affected patients with BPD and various comorbid disorders can be treated successfully with DBT and ST. An additional non-inferiority trial is needed to show if both treatments are equally effective. The trial was retrospectively registered on the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00011534 without protocol changes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
辩证行为疗法与模式疗法对边缘型人格障碍的疗效比较:随机临床试验
导言:在边缘型人格障碍(BPD)的治疗中,辩证行为疗法(DBT)和模式疗法(ST)都得到了经验上的支持;但这两种疗法从未被直接比较过。本研究探讨了这两种疗法在治疗 BPD 患者方面是否更有效:在这项随机、平行组、评分者盲法临床试验中,一家三级门诊治疗中心(德国吕贝克)招募了年龄在 18 岁至 65 岁之间、主要诊断为 BPD 的门诊患者。参与者随机接受 DBT 或 ST 治疗,在 1.5 年的时间里,每周进行一次个人治疗和一次小组治疗。主要结果是在1年的自然随访中用边缘型人格障碍严重程度指数的平均分评估BPD症状的严重程度:2014年11月26日至2018年12月14日期间,我们共招募了164名患者(平均年龄=33.7 [SD = 10.61]岁)。其中,81 人(49.4%)接受了 ST 治疗,83 人(50.6%)接受了 DBT 治疗,总体而言,130 人(79.3%)为女性。采用广义线性混合模型进行的意向治疗分析表明,在为期一年的自然随访中,DBT 和 ST 在 BPDSI 总分上没有显著差异(平均差异为 3.32 [95% CI:-0.58-7.22],P = 0.094,d = -24 [-0.69; 0.20]),DBT 的得分较低。两组患者的随访前效应大小都很大(DBT:d = 2.45 [1.88-3.02];ST:d = 1.78 [1.26-2.29]):结论:两个治疗组的患者均有显著改善,这表明即使是患有严重 BPD 和各种合并症的患者,也能成功接受 DBT 和 ST 治疗。还需要再进行一次非劣效性试验,以证明这两种治疗方法是否同样有效。该试验已在德国临床试验注册中心(DRKS00011534)进行了回顾性注册,未对方案进行修改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
29.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is a reputable journal that has been published since 1953. Over the years, it has gained recognition for its independence, originality, and methodological rigor. The journal has been at the forefront of research in psychosomatic medicine, psychotherapy research, and psychopharmacology, and has contributed to the development of new lines of research in these areas. It is now ranked among the world's most cited journals in the field. As the official journal of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine and the World Federation for Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics serves as a platform for discussing current and controversial issues and showcasing innovations in assessment and treatment. It offers a unique forum for cutting-edge thinking at the intersection of medical and behavioral sciences, catering to both practicing clinicians and researchers. The journal is indexed in various databases and platforms such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, Google Scholar, Academic Search, and Health Research Premium Collection, among others.
期刊最新文献
Neuromodulations in Psychiatric Disorders: Emerging Lines of Definition. Karl Rickels Centenarian: Celebration of a Clinician-Scientist. The Power of a Good Word: Enhancing the Efficacy of Analgesics in Clinical Settings. Reconsidering Persistent Somatic Symptoms: A Transdiagnostic and Transsymptomatic Approach. Developing and Testing Complex Interventions in Psychosomatic Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1