AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY最新文献

Objective: This study aimed to compare suicide mortality rates for patients receiving two evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) protocols for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure (PE).

Methods: Suicide mortality was measured among U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs patients with PTSD who received EBP from 2009 through 2019. Regional variation in delivering CPT versus PE was leveraged as an instrumental variable (IV) to compare suicide mortality by using standard adjustment and IV-based analyses.

Results: In total, 62,686 patients received EBP for PTSD; 82.4% were male, and the mean±SD age was 46.9±14.4. Patients were followed for a median of 6 years, and there were 136 deaths by suicide (38.3 and 32.4 per 100,000 person-years among the CPT and PE groups, respectively). The regional rate of CPT versus PE delivery was a strong IV that had greater explanatory power for the type of EBP received than all patient factors combined. The standard adjustment model for CPT produced a hazard ratio of 1.25, whereas the reduced-form IV produced a hazard ratio of 1.22. The probit IV, in which relevant covariates were updated annually, produced an odds ratio of 0.99. The time-to-event IV produced a hazard ratio of 1.20. The differences were not significant.

Conclusions: No statistically significant difference was found between CPT and PE in the outcome of death by suicide. More effective interventions that result in higher remission rates would likely need to be developed to achieve a relative decrease in suicide risk through PTSD treatment.

Borderline personality disorder has been estimated to occur among about 4% of those with autism spectrum disorder. This co-occurrence can escalate the challenges of treating either condition separately, and patients often face severe challenges in psychosocial and occupational functioning. Clinicians need guidance to manage a high degree of complexity, using standards of care and a synthesis of what is known so far, to navigate the currently limited armamentarium of clinical tools. This article reviews the available scientific research and clinical experience with respect to diagnosis, psychoeducation, treatment framework, safety management, other co-occurring disorders, and multimodal treatments. It also discusses future directions for generating new knowledge to improve the care of patients with this important co-occurrence. Although the discussion explores the unique complexity and relative lack of clinical guidelines at present, good psychiatric management serves as a clinical framework that anchors treatment approaches as the evidence base develops.

Significant gains have been made in the treatment of personality disorder among young people. However, effect sizes for evidence-based treatments have been modest, and emerging evidence suggests the potential of generalist approaches to improve outcomes in this population. The aim of this review was to highlight how generalist approaches such as good psychiatric management for adolescents (GPM-A) hold promise for early intervention for personality disorders among young people. The authors discuss recent advances in clinical understanding of the diagnosis and treatment of personality disorder among youths and demonstrate how these advances align with GPM-A. Specifically, the authors show how several of GPM-A's guiding principles-most notably the need for access, common-factor approaches, and a focus on interpersonal hypersensitivity and restoring general functioning-align with these advances. This review suggests that GPM-A provides a timely and promising framework for innovating early interventions for personality disorder among young people.

Treatment guidelines for personality disorders have typically recommended specialized psychotherapeutic interventions. In this review, the author suggests that an intervention's effectiveness may be determined less by the specific method than by therapist competence, team culture, clinical process structure, and institutional context. The author argues that these elements determine variance in effectiveness between and within methods. Whereas initial studies of a specialized treatment may reflect the exceptional competencies of the treatment's developers and early adopters, in daily clinical practice, therapists with an average level of skill may struggle with the theoretical and methodological complexities of these treatments, which can hinder genuine connection with patients. This interference may particularly affect treatment outcomes when therapists encounter the intense emotions and interpersonal hypersensitivity experienced by patients with personality disorders. Most therapists would benefit from a set of simple generalist principles that determine the context for their work and offer a framework for dealing with clinical challenges while enabling them to be true to themselves and use their previously learned competencies. The Guideline-Informed Treatment for Personality Disorders is an enhanced common-factors approach that summarizes the core principles of effective treatment and can be feasibly implemented by most therapists.

More than half of all people with borderline personality disorder will develop alcohol use disorder in their lifetime. These disorders mutually reinforce each other, with a higher risk for treatment failure and poor outcomes, including suicide, yet no widely available treatments have been found to be effective for both diagnoses concurrently, leaving patients and clinicians alike stranded between two clinical domains that rarely overlap despite shared features. In the absence of alternatives, good psychiatric management (GPM) capitalizes on standard-of-care interventions using generic clinical tools that do not require specialization. In an effort to broaden and stabilize the social networks of connections for patients with interpersonal hypersensitivity, GPM relies on a multimodal approach that combines the indicated pharmacological and psychosocial interventions for the treatment of alcohol use disorder with a common-factors approach for borderline personality disorder. This multimodal approach emphasizes psychoeducation, social rehabilitation, management of suicidality, and active management of these frequently comorbid conditions. In this article, the authors describe GPM's strategy of stabilizing and broadening the patient's social network to target the core interpersonal and stress hypersensitivity. To do this, clinicians can use interventions for significant others combined with empirically supported and widely available mutual-help groups, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, that structure and regulate relational instabilities with community norms, standards, roles, and procedures. GPM also promotes family interventions for both conditions to reduce conflict and increase support within existing relationships, thereby strengthening patients' capacity to work on their sobriety and borderline personality disorder by mitigating aloneness and its effects.

Borderline personality disorder is a common condition characterized by numerous comorbid conditions, frequent use of clinical services, and an elevated lifetime risk for suicide. Good psychiatric management (GPM) was developed for patients with borderline personality disorder with the purpose of supporting wider community adoption and dissemination compared with existing therapies. The authors aimed to review the foundations and development of GPM, in particular the initial Canadian study assessing the therapy. They then reviewed the progress in research arising from the initial study and explored the research and educational opportunities needed to further the development of GPM for patients with borderline personality disorder. Research has indicated that patients with borderline personality disorder with complex comorbid conditions and impulsivity may benefit from GPM. Future research needs include noninferiority and equivalence studies comparing GPM with another evidence-based treatment; studies demonstrating that evidence-based therapies for borderline personality disorder improve functioning; and research on more accessible therapies, mechanisms of action for evidence-based therapies, extending therapies to patients with borderline personality disorder and significant comorbid conditions, and modifying therapies for men with borderline personality disorder. Attention should be directed toward testing stepped care models and integrating therapies such as GPM into psychiatric training programs. GPM is in development but shows promise as a therapy that is effective and accessible and that can be widely disseminated.

Borderline personality disorder and eating disorders frequently co-occur among youths. These disorders emerge in adolescence, during the critical developmental period of building an independent sense of self and the capacity to relate to one's community. Because of core differences in the development and psychopathology of borderline personality disorder and eating disorders, adjustments are required when treating these disorders when they co-occur. Few established treatment approaches can address these disorders simultaneously. Evidence-based psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder, such as dialectical behavior therapy and mentalization-based treatment, have been adapted to accommodate the shared vulnerabilities and features of the two disorders. However, these approaches are specialized, intensive, and lengthy and are therefore poorly suited to implementation in general psychiatric or primary health care, where most frontline mental health care is provided. Generalist approaches can fill this public health gap, guiding nonspecialists in structuring informed clinical management for these impairing and sometimes fatal disorders. In this overview, the authors describe the adjustment of good (or general) psychiatric management (GPM) for adolescents with borderline personality disorder to incorporate the prevailing best practices for eating disorder treatment. The adjusted treatment relies on interventions most clinicians already use (diagnostic disclosure, psychoeducation, focusing on life outside treatment, managing patients' self-destructive behaviors, and conservative psychopharmacology with active management of comorbid conditions). Limitations of the adjusted treatment, as well as guidelines for referring patients to specialized and general medical treatments and for returning them to primary generalist psychiatric care, are discussed.

Spiritual and religious experiences in the context of borderline personality disorder are underexplored by both researchers and clinicians, are central in the lived experience of some patients, and are likely to interact in complex ways with core symptoms and challenges. Effective navigation of this domain by clinicians and patients may require increasing, decreasing, or stabilizing engagement with spiritual and religious beliefs, practices, or communities, depending on the person. No empirically derived guidelines exist for how clinicians can address this area to help patients maximize benefits while minimizing harms. The author summarizes what is known about spirituality and religiosity in borderline personality disorder and draws on evidence-based theory and techniques from good psychiatric management to develop a preliminary phenomenology of spiritual connectedness amid interpersonal hypersensitivity and tentative guidelines for effectively addressing this domain.

In this review, the question of whether good psychiatric management (GPM) has a sufficient, or good-enough, evidence base is examined from two complementary perspectives. First, the author reviews research that has investigated whether GPM reduces symptoms of borderline personality disorder. Analyses at the group and individual levels have indicated that symptoms may decrease among patients receiving GPM. Second, the author reviews research that has investigated the processes through which change occurs in GPM. Studies that have shown process changes toward emotional balance, interpersonally effective functioning, and a more coherent and reality-based autobiographical narrative are discussed. To fully answer the question of whether GPM is good enough, more controlled trials are needed to demonstrate effectiveness, mechanisms of change, and broad implementation in culturally diverse populations.