Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T14:48:01.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Community mental healthcare for people with severe personality disorder: narrative review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Bauke Koekkoek*
Affiliation:
Altrecht Mental Health Care, The Netherlands
Berno van Meijel
Affiliation:
Inholland University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Giel Hutschemaekers
Affiliation:
Gelderse Roos Mental Health Care and Radboud University, The Netherlands
*
Bauke Koekkoek (b.koekkoek@altrecht.nl)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims and method

To assess the contents and the theoretical and empirical base of community mental healthcare (CMHC) for people with severe personality disorder. Medline and PsycINFO databases and handbooks were searched from 1980, as well as a recent meta-analysis and systematic review of trials in which CMHC served as the control condition.

Results

Community mental healthcare is a long-term community-based treatment within a supportive atmosphere, aimed at stability rather than change. Mostly offered by community psychiatric nurses, occupational therapists and social workers, it lacks a formal structure, as well as theoretical underpinnings that guide interventions.

Clinical implications

Community mental healthcare might profit from a more systematic application of effective ingredients from other treatments.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010

People with severe personality disorders do not easily find their way into treatment. Reference Bateman and Tyrer1 Many may go unnoticed owing to limited detection by health providers, Reference Links, Boiago, Allnut and Links2 resulting in patients not receiving specialised therapy. Reference Andrews3Reference Stone5 Even when such increasingly effective therapies are indicated, Reference Adshead6Reference Leichsenring and Leibing7 not all patients profit from them because of limited availability or suitability. Apart from notable differences in their implementation, our own experience with referral to and working in these specialised therapies is that in many cases the therapies are not indicated or the patients fail to enter treatment, drop out or fail to improve. Some patients have limited motivation or capacities, have an abundance of social problems that prevent therapy taking place properly, behave in an overly disruptive manner or lack the stability to attend sessions regularly. In a large group of patients with severe personality disorders, those of lower socioeconomic status and with more impaired psychosocial functioning were more likely to receive residential, day and psychopharmacological treatment than intensive individual, couple or group psychotherapy. Reference Binks, Fenton, McCarthy, Lee, Adams and Duggan8

A general form of treatment may then be offered to these patients: community mental healthcare (CMHC). This is a community-based, long-term treatment within a supportive atmosphere aimed at stability rather than change. Although referred to as ‘good clinical care’, Reference Andrews3,Reference Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen and Silk9 it is largely unclear if CMHC is ‘good’. On the contrary, in daily practice it is often associated with long-term care lacking clear aims and therapeutic ambitions, Reference Dowson and Grounds10 possibly resulting in unnecessary dependency. In addition, negative professional attitudes towards patients with personality disorders have been reported frequently, Reference Craddock, Antebi, Attenburrow, Bailey, Carson and Cowen11Reference Lewis and Appleby13 possibly resulting in an ineffective patient–professional interaction, especially in long-term supportive care. Therefore, we aim to answer the following questions in this review: what, exactly, is CMHC for severe personality disorder; who provides it; how does it compare with other forms of treatment for this disorder; what are its empirical and theoretical underpinnings; and what are its strengths and limitations?

Method

The search strategy consisted of three successive phases, owing to limited findings in the previous phases. First, a systematic search of general databases was conducted. Second, control conditions of experimental treatments of personality disorder treatments were searched. Third, textbooks and cross-references were used to obtain a broader scope.

A search of the Medline and PsycINFO databases was conducted for publications in English between 1980 (when Axis II was introduced in the DSM–III) and May 2006. Owing to the lack of a clear search term for CMHC, a broad search strategy was designed. The MeSH headings ‘personality disorders’ AND (‘community mental health service’ OR ‘counseling’ OR ‘ambulatory care’ OR ‘nursing care’ OR ‘long-term care’ OR ‘case management’ OR ‘social work’ OR ‘psychiatric social work’ OR ‘day care’ OR ‘rehabilitation’ OR ‘supportive therapy’ [the last as a title word]) were used. The main inclusion criteria were that the article had to have a psychosocial treatment of personality disorders as its main subject and be written in English. Exclusion criteria were descriptions or evaluations of manualised specialised psychotherapy for personality disorder; interventions with juveniles (under 18 years old) or those over 65 years of age; and interventions in a non-psychiatric setting (e.g. a general hospital). Although over a thousand references were retrieved, only 20 met these criteria. For this reason, an additional search strategy was designed. A meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcomes for personality disorders and a recent Cochrane systematic review of psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder were analysed to detect studies that possibly described CMHC as the control condition. Reference Bateman and Tyrer1,Reference Links, Boiago, Allnut and Links2 No other more recent meta-analyses or Cochrane reviews of this field were available at the time this search took place.

Of the total 26 studies analysed, 7 described the control condition (‘treatment as usual’) in enough detail to be of use. The remaining 19 studies did not aim at severe personality disorder, did not have a control condition, described a second psychotherapeutic treatment as the control condition or described the control condition only vaguely. Since these control conditions were only described and not explained in detail, we hand-searched recent textbooks on personality disorders – retrieved on the internet by combining ‘personality disorders’ with ‘management’ and (‘handbook’ or ‘textbook’ or ‘guide’ or ‘manual’) – for chapters or texts on non-psychotherapeutic treatments. Additionally, we used cross-references to extend findings and broaden our understanding of the subject.

Results

In the search conducted, no single paper was devoted to the description of what might be considered as standard community care for severe personality disorder. Our additional search strategy yielded eight descriptions of ‘treatment as usual’ (Table 1), Reference Deans and Meocevic14Reference Koons, Robins, Tweed, Lynch, Gonzalez and Morse21 based on which we draw some tentative conclusions. Community mental healthcare is most often offered on an out-patient basis, every 2 weeks on average, lasting 6–24 months. It is not formalised or manualised but consists of an eclectic mix of different modalities. It has a supportive character that seems more closely linked to care and psychosocial support than to psychotherapy. It is most often offered by general mental health professionals (not psychotherapists). Formal goals of CMHC are not acknowledged in the literature retrieved, yet they seem to be centred around not making things worse, offering a certain holding to the patient and keeping things under control. Reference Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen and Silk9 It appears relatively universal across Western psychiatry, since studies originated from different parts of the world (Australia, Europe and North America).

Table 1 Control conditions describing community mental healthcare (‘treatment as usual’)

Researchers (country, publication year) Experimental condition Control condition Location Profession Duration Frequency
Woody et al Reference Deans and Meocevic14 (USA, 1985) Drug counselling and manualised psychotherapy Drug counselling Out-patient Mental health professionals Not known Not known
Linehan et al Reference Newton-Howes, Weaver and Tyrer15 (USA, 1991) Dialectical behaviour therapy Non-manualised psychotherapy or alternative therapy Out-patient Not known >1 year Not known
Stevenson & Meares Reference Woody, McLellan, Luborsky and O'Brien16 (Australia, 1992) Self-psychology psychotherapy Crisis intervention, supportive psychotherapy, cognitive therapy and/or pharmacotherapy (all non-manualised) Out-patient Not known 12 months Not known
Bateman & Fonagy Reference Linehan, Armstrong, Suarez, Allmon and Heard17 (UK, 1999) Mentalisation-based treatment Pharmacotherapy (partial), hospitalisation and supportive out-patient and community care (Day) hospital and out-patient Community psychiatric nurse and psychiatrist >6 months Every 2 weeks
Linehan et al Reference Stevenson and Meares18 (USA, 1999) Dialectical behaviour therapy Non-manualised psychotherapy, counselling or case management Out-patient Mental health professionals 12 months As required
Koons et al Reference Bateman and Fonagy19 (USA, 2001) Dialectical behaviour therapy Non-manualised psychotherapy, supportive and psychoeducational groups Out-patient Not known 6 months Weekly
van den Bosch et al Reference Linehan, Schmidt, Dimeff, Craft, Kanter and Comtois20 (The Netherlands, 2002) Dialectical behaviour therapy Clinical management Out-patient Psychiatrist, psychologist or social worker 12 months Every 2 weeks or less often
Chiesa & Fonagy Reference Koons, Robins, Tweed, Lynch, Gonzalez and Morse21 (UK, 2004) Psychoanalytic (partial) hospital and out-patient treatment Pharmacotherapy, supportive out-patient and community care, clinical review and hospitalisation (as needed) Hospital and out-patient Care workers 24 months Every 2-4 weeks

Professionals providing community mental healthcare

From a number of studies we may tentatively conclude that mental health professionals from different backgrounds, without formal psychotherapeutic training, offer CMHC. Reference Deans and Meocevic14Reference Koons, Robins, Tweed, Lynch, Gonzalez and Morse21 This would be consistent with daily practice noticed in different countries, where care is offered from busy non-specialised mental health centres. Reference Andrews3,Reference van den Bosch, Verheul, Schippers and van den Brink22 From an English study it was concluded that the case-loads of community psychiatric nurses and occupational therapists in community mental health teams contained far more patients with personality disorders (67%) than did those of psychiatrists and psychologists (35%). Reference Chiesa, Fonagy, Holmes and Drahorad23 In a comparable study, it was social workers and again occupational therapists who treated most people with personality disorder. Reference Burns, Sampson, McCubbin and Tyrer24 A possible explanation is that patients with severe personality disorders are treated by the professionals with the lowest threshold for inclusion in their case-load (i.e. non-psychotherapists). Support for this hypothesis is offered by the large percentage of patients with severe personality disorders among the case-loads of community psychiatric nurses and occupational therapists: twice as many as among psychiatrists and psychologists (31% v. 15%). Reference Chiesa, Fonagy, Holmes and Drahorad23 Although these professions may be the principal providers of CMHC, they are virtually absent from the literature on severe personality disorders (e.g. in a guide on personality disorders and community mental health teams, they did not author a single chapter). Reference Keown, Holloway and Kuipers25

Relation to other treatments

We conclude from the above that CMHC is an eclectic treatment, combining elements of different therapeutic approaches (especially cognitive–behavioural and supportive therapy), crisis management and pharmacotherapy. It resembles the ‘psychiatric management’ described in the American Psychiatric Association's guideline on borderline personality disorder. Reference Greenwood, Chisholm, Burns and Harvey26 Its principles are:

  1. responding to crises and monitoring safety;

  2. establishing and maintaining a therapeutic framework and alliance;

  3. providing education about the disorder and its treatment;

  4. coordinating the treatment effort;

  5. monitoring and reassessing the patient's clinical status and treatment plan.

However structured this may look, no treatment form is described as such and in daily practice decisions may be made on a much more ad hoc basis.

Community mental healthcare differs from psychotherapy and psychosocial rehabilitation in several ways (Table 2). The distinct empirically supported psychotherapies focus on internal psychological processes such as increased emotion regulation (dialectical behaviour therapy), Reference Newton-Howes, Weaver and Tyrer15 change of maladaptive schemas (schema-focused therapy), Reference Sampson, McCubbin and Tyrer27 increased mentalisation (mentalisation-based therapy), Reference Linehan, Armstrong, Suarez, Allmon and Heard17 or integration of internal mental representations (transference-focused therapy). 28 If CMHC is carefully and successfully carried out, patients may move on to one of these programmes, if available. Reference Giesen-Bloo, van Dyck, Spinhoven, van Tilburg, Dirksen and van Asselt29 Psychosocial rehabilitation programmes, on the other hand, focus more on social functioning and aim at increased social participation and activities. Originally designed for people with psychotic disorders, rehabilitative approaches are described increasingly frequently in cases of personality disorder. From different international perspectives, a professional attitude of acceptance of, and coping with, chronic problems is described. Reference Clarkin, Levy, Lenzenweger and Kernberg30Reference Paris34 The extension of psychosocial rehabilitation to this group of patients is not without trouble, however. Many professionals do not know how to work well with these patients: they find the working alliance with patients with personality disorders more complex than with patients with psychosis (who mostly receive psychosocial rehabilitation). Reference Paris34 Likewise, people with (severe) personality disorder as a primary diagnosis are rarely represented in psychosocial rehabilitation or assertive community treatment programmes, Reference Links35Reference Krawitz and Watson37 or are more likely to drop out. Reference Nehls38

Table 2 Treatment modalities associated with (severe) personality disorder

Treatment Patient group Professionals Precondition Goal Method Structure Team/individual Empirical support
Community mental healthcare Psychotic disorder and severe personality disorder Mental health professionals (community psychiatric nurses, social workers, case managers) None Management in the community Variable treatment (low to very high intensity, sometimes outreaching) Not manualised Individual No
Specialised psychotherapy Reference Dowson and Grounds10-Reference Linehan, Armstrong, Suarez, Allmon and Heard17,Reference Chiesa, Fonagy, Holmes and Drahorad23,Reference Burns, Sampson, McCubbin and Tyrer24 (Severe) personality disorder Psychotherapists and psychiatrists Some motivation for (intensive) psychotherapeutic intervention Symptom reduction and change of coping mechanisms Intensive psychotherapy (several hours/week) Manualised Team Yes
Psychosocial rehabilitation Reference Gunderson, Gratz, Neuhaus, Smith, Oldham, Skodol and Bender31,Reference Livesley32 Psychotic disorder (predominantly) Mental health professionals (community psychiatric nurses, social workers, case managers) Minimal presence of acute psychiatric symptoms that need treatment Increase of social participation and activities Outreaching treatment Partly manualised Individual Some
Supportive psychotherapy Reference Ranger, Methuen, Rutter, Rao and Tyrer41-Reference Hoffman, Fruzetti, Oldham, Skodol and Bender44 (Severe) personality disorder Psychotherapists and psychiatrists Some motivation for psychotherapeutic intervention Symptom reduction and optimisation of coping mechanisms Psychotherapy Partly manualised Individual Some

In textbooks on personality disorders, some treatment elements (although not CMHC in general) are described in more detail: psychoeducational approaches, Reference Barton39,Reference Twamley, Jeste and Lehman40 supportive therapy, Reference Ranger, Methuen, Rutter, Rao and Tyrer41,Reference Cohen, Edstrom and Smith-Papke42 and general treatment considerations. Reference Ruiz-Sancho, Smith, Gunderson and Livesley43,Reference Hoffman, Fruzetti, Oldham, Skodol and Bender44 Supportive psychotherapy, which aims at adaptation (a concept discussed below in more detail) is the most researched of these. Reference Winston, Rosenthal, Muran and Livesley45Reference Livesley47 Some empirical support exists for it in general, Reference Dawson and Links48,Reference Aviram, Hellerstein, Gerson and Stanley49 and for cluster B and C personality disorders in particular. Reference Appelbaum, Oldham, Skodol and Bender46,Reference Livesley47 Some authors suggest that supportive therapy might be the treatment of choice with patients with severe personality disorders. Reference Ranger, Methuen, Rutter, Rao and Tyrer41,Reference Winston, Rosenthal, Muran and Livesley45,Reference Appelbaum, Oldham, Skodol and Bender46 Other studies emphasise the adaptive element in the treatment of severe personality disorder and offer some instructions on specific areas: adjusting environmental factors, Reference Hellerstein, Rosenthal, Pinsker, Samstag, Muran and Winston50,Reference Piper, Joyce, McCallum and Azim51 offering vocational training, Reference Rockland52 and installing supportive milieus. Reference Holmes53 Practical matters such as the optimal frequency of appointments, managing ‘no-show’ and indication criteria for hospitalisation are not addressed in either approach.

Theoretical and empirical base of community mental healthcare

The aforementioned issues may be resolved through the use of a theoretical framework, yet none of the articles retrieved contained any data about theoretical or empirical support for CMHC. Although the supportive therapy mentioned above differs significantly from CMHC in that it is more formalised and strict (e.g. weekly appointments for a given number of weeks) and requires at least some motivation for a change-oriented treatment, its theoretical concept may apply to CMHC as well. The theoretical base of supportive therapy lies in an adaptive concept: the therapist ensures the safety of the patient by being non-judgemental, by supporting effective defence mechanisms, by focusing on the real relationship instead of on transference phenomena, and by reframing negative experiences into more positive meanings. Transference is then analysed only when it obstructs treatment. This description, although not derived from the CMHC literature, fits in with our previous general description of CMHC, as well as with aforementioned adaptive approaches. Community mental healthcare offers a supportive rather than a confrontational atmosphere and also focuses on the ‘here and now’. The difference lies in its final aim, which in supportive therapy is individual change, whereas in CMHC it is management in the community and preservation of a certain quality of life.

Strengths and limitations of community mental healthcare

Community mental healthcare may be regarded as a highly humane form of help for particularly vulnerable individuals, as expressed through the term ‘good clinical care’. Reference Andrews3,Reference Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen and Silk9 For example, patients who are frequently (para)suicidal are usually not welcome in other branches of social or mental healthcare, thus CMHC may be the only service that supports these patients. It may be argued that if these patients could not seek some refuge in mental healthcare they would become marginalised even further. The validity of this argument is somewhat undermined by recent data on the natural course of borderline personality disorder. This research, showing diminishing symptoms over a 10-year period, Reference Tyrer54 suggests that intrusive interventions by mental health professionals may not always be indicated. Also, rapid remissions that could not be completely related to treatment gains have been seen in some patients with borderline personality disorder. Reference Tyrer, Sensky and Mitchard55 However, in neither of these studies could the positive (or negative) attributions of therapy to remission be assessed empirically. Although treatment is obviously helpful in most cases, it cannot be concluded that treatment is always necessary or better than no treatment.

Discussion

First of all, we must state that this review has some limitations: we are not sure to what extent the indirect information about CMHC is reliable. It may be that CMHC is very different from setting to setting and even from professional to professional. Another limitation is the lack of differentiation between the accessibility of different systems of psychiatric care across Western countries. Because of local funding principles, CMHC may be quite inclusive in some regions and virtually absent in others. Although we know from personal experience and inter-collegiate contacts that these differences exist, we could not trace them in the literature. Owing to the limited literature and even more limited research, the conclusions of this review must be considered as preliminary.

From our results we conclude that CMHC lacks a clear description and both solid empirical and theoretical grounds. The lack of evidence does in itself not mean that CMHC has no relevance or quality, but does make it susceptible to debate. Since CMHC has only served as a control condition in research thus far, it has not been established for whom and when it may work. The studies reviewed here show different outcomes: both positive and negative as well as undecided or hard to interpret. As such, we cannot be definitive about CMHC apart from the observation that a treatment that appears to be harmful in some cases needs to be indicated carefully. Once indicated, we believe CMHC would profit from meeting some basic requirements.

Iatrogenic damage

The main argument to consider carefully when assessing the suitability of CMHC for patients with severe personality disorder is the risk of iatrogenic damage, opposed to the chance of (sometimes spontaneous) remission. Current opinion is that people with the single most prominent personality disorder (borderline) do not always profit more from bad care than from no care at all. Reference Rockland52Reference Tyrer54 Community mental healthcare, which could potentially be provided ‘several times a week’ (Dowson & Grounds: Reference Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen and Silk9 p. 276) ‘on an indefinite basis’ (ibid: p. 278) may foster unnecessary dependence on psychiatric care in the patient. Reference Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen and Silk9 Iatrogenic damage may also consist of serious (physical) damage from multiple or lengthy hospitalisations aimed at preventing suicide, yet paradoxically exacerbating it. Reference Hennessey and McReynolds59 Such damage is observed more often in CMHC than in specialised care. Reference Appelbaum and Munich60 With regard to other personality disorders, equal doubts about the need for support and the risk of dependency have been expressed. Reference van den Bosch, Verheul, Schippers and van den Brink22,Reference Hoffman, Fruzetti, Oldham, Skodol and Bender44 If some patients actually become worse through CMHC, its indication for any patient should be carefully considered. Moreover, owing to the often turbulent course of treatment and the difficulties of the patients involved, interpersonal problems between patients and professionals easily arise in CMHC. As staff members are not always specifically trained in the management of such (counter)transference, and community mental health centres tend to be busy and somewhat overburdened institutions, Reference Keown, Holloway and Kuipers25,Reference Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen, Reich and Silk61Reference Gunderson, Bender, Sanislow, Yen, Rettew and Dolan-Sewell63 adverse reactions are likely. In particular, staff who primarily work with major Axis I disorders (e.g. psychotic disorders, in which interpersonal issues are of a different kind) may be unpleasantly surprised by the impact of working with people with severe personality disorder. Reference Appelbaum and Munich60 The centre's structure and culture may not be prepared for intensive supervision or consultation with regard to these patients.

Possible improvements

Community mental healthcare would, in our view, greatly benefit from some alterations. First, it should have a solid structure. The current practice of intermittent reinforcement of intensive crisis intervention, combined with relatively little or no care during calmer periods, may be the very perpetuator of the dependency loathed by many (e.g. British psychiatrists who recently stated that patients may expect more than just ‘non-specific psychosocial support’). Reference Dowson and Grounds10 Improvement of the structure and predictability (including, for instance, mutual goal-setting, treatment contracting and limit-setting) of CMHC might prevent this. Second, from two highly researched psychotherapies for severe borderline personality disorder (dialectical behaviour therapy and mentalisation-based therapy) it may be concluded that a team approach is preferable to an individual one. In such a cooperative framework, it is highly important that professionals working with patients with severe personality disorders are in some way able to express their feelings about patient contacts. Although hardly surprising, and obviously relevant for any form of treatment for personality disorders, this is often overlooked in CMHC. Professionals providing CMHC are often not psychotherapeutically trained and may lack the routine of looking at their own role in the therapeutic encounter. Reference Fonagy and Bateman65 Therefore, supervision should be provided within the (treatment) structure of the team. Reference Dawson and Macmillan66 Third, not every individual is suited to work with people with severe personality disorder. Gunderson et al concluded, having studied 752 clinicians, that ‘some psychiatrists, many social workers and most nurses’ consider themselves incompetent with patients with borderline disorder (p. 248). Reference Giesen-Bloo, van Dyck, Spinhoven, van Tilburg, Dirksen and van Asselt29 Considering that CMHC is often provided by social workers and community psychiatric nurses, assigning patients with severe personality disorder at random to a community mental health professional may be unwise. Awareness of each team member's abilities and limitations may help in such cases. Furthermore, research shows that training may be effective in improving both professionals' knowledge of these patients and their attitudes towards them. Reference Gunderson67,Reference Paris68

Implications for research and practice

Although our results are limited in both quantity and quality, we may draw some preliminary conclusions from this review. Community mental healthcare may profit from more structure than it currently has. It should not ignore social problems, while maintaining a working alliance that fosters clients' independence and responsibility. A team approach that enables mutual support and supervision and matches patients to professionals might further improve quality, just as focused training might do. An integration of useful elements of specialised psychotherapy and psychosocial rehabilitation might serve CMHC well. Such an integrative programme should combine the specific elements of the former (e.g. management of patient–professional interaction, explanatory model of personality disorders) with those of the latter (e.g. long-term goal-setting, strategies to enhance social participation).

Funding

This study was made possible by financial support from ZonMw (Geestkracht program, grant 100-002-031), Altrecht Mental Health Care, De Gelderse Roos Mental Health Care and Inholland University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

None.

References

1 Bateman, AW, Tyrer, P. Services for personality disorder: organisation for inclusion. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2004; 10: 425–33.Google Scholar
2 Links, PS, Boiago, I, Allnut, S. Understanding and recognizing personality disorders. In Clinical Assessment and Management of Severe Personality Disorders (ed Links, PS): 120. American Psychiatric Publishing, 1996.Google Scholar
3 Andrews, G. The essential psychotherapies. Br J Psychiatry 1993; 162: 447–51.Google Scholar
4 Stone, MH. Personality-disordered Patients. Treatable and Untreatable. American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005.Google Scholar
5 Adshead, G. Murmurs of discontent: treatment and treatability of personality disorder. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2001; 7: 407–15.Google Scholar
6 Leichsenring, F, Leibing, E. The effectiveness of psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy in the treatment of personality disorders: a meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 1223–32.Google Scholar
7 Binks, CA, Fenton, M, McCarthy, L, Lee, T, Adams, CE, Duggan, C. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; issue 1: CD005652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Zanarini, MC, Frankenburg, FR, Hennen, J, Silk, KR. Mental health service utilization by borderline personality disorder patients and Axis II comparison subjects followed prospectively for 6 years. J Clin Psychiatry 2004; 65: 2836.Google Scholar
9 Dowson, JH, Grounds, A. Personality Disorder: Recognition and Clinical Management. Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
10 Craddock, N, Antebi, D, Attenburrow, MJ, Bailey, A, Carson, A, Cowen, P, et al. Wake-up call for British psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry 2008; 193: 69.Google Scholar
11 Lewis, G, Appleby, L. Personality disorder: the patients psychiatrists dislike. Br J Psychiatry 1988; 153: 44–9.Google Scholar
12 Deans, C, Meocevic, E. Attitudes of registered psychiatric nurses towards patients diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Contemp Nurse 2006; 21: 43–9.Google Scholar
13 Newton-Howes, G, Weaver, T, Tyrer, P. Attitudes of staff towards patients with personality disorder in community mental health teams. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2008; 42: 572–7.Google Scholar
14 Woody, GE, McLellan, AT, Luborsky, L, O'Brien, CP. Sociopathy and psychotherapy outcome. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985; 42: 1081–6.Google Scholar
15 Linehan, MM, Armstrong, HE, Suarez, A, Allmon, D, Heard, HL. Cognitive-behavioural treatment of chronically parasuicidal borderline patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991; 48: 1060–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Stevenson, J, Meares, R. An outcome study of psychotherapy for patients with borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 1992; 149: 358–62.Google ScholarPubMed
17 Bateman, A, Fonagy, P. Effectiveness of partial hospitalization in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156: 1563–9.Google Scholar
18 Linehan, MM, Schmidt, H, Dimeff, LA, Craft, JC, Kanter, J, Comtois, KA. Dialectical behaviour therapy for patients with borderline personality disorder and drug-dependence. Am J Addict 1999; 8: 279–92.Google Scholar
19 Koons, CR, Robins, CJ, Tweed, JL, Lynch, TR, Gonzalez, AM, Morse, JQ, et al. Efficacy of dialectical behaviour therapy in women veterans with borderline personality disorder. Behav Ther 2001; 32: 371–90.Google Scholar
20 van den Bosch, LM, Verheul, R, Schippers, GM, van den Brink, W. Dialectical Behaviour Therapy of borderline patients with and without substance use problems. Implementation and long-term effects. Addict Behav 2002; 27: 911–23.Google Scholar
21 Chiesa, M, Fonagy, P, Holmes, J, Drahorad, C. Residential versus community treatment of personality disorders: a comparative study of three treatment programs. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 1463–70.Google Scholar
22 Burns, T. An introduction to community mental health teams (CMHTs): how do they relate to patients with personality disorders? In Personality Disorder and Community Mental Health Teams: A Practitioner's Guide (eds Sampson, M, McCubbin, R, Tyrer, P). Wiley, 2006.Google Scholar
23 Keown, P, Holloway, F, Kuipers, E. The prevalence of personality disorders, psychotic disorders and affective disorders amongst the patients seen by a community mental health team in London. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2002; 37: 225–9.Google Scholar
24 Greenwood, N, Chisholm, B, Burns, T, Harvey, K. Community mental health team case-loads and diagnostic case-mix. Psychiatr Bull 2000; 24: 290–3.Google Scholar
25 Sampson, M, McCubbin, R, Tyrer, P (eds). Personality Disorder and Community Mental Health Teams: A Practitioner's Guide. Wiley, 2006.Google Scholar
26 American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158 (suppl): 152.Google Scholar
27 Giesen-Bloo, J, van Dyck, R, Spinhoven, P, van Tilburg, W, Dirksen, C, van Asselt, T, et al. Outpatient psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: randomized trial of schema-focused therapy vs transference-focused psychotherapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006; 63: 649–58.Google Scholar
28 Clarkin, JF, Levy, KN, Lenzenweger, MF, Kernberg, OF. Evaluating three treatments for borderline personality disorder: a multiwave study. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164: 922–8.Google Scholar
29 Gunderson, JG, Gratz, KL, Neuhaus, EC, Smith, GW. Levels of care in treatment. In Textbook of Personality Disorders (eds Oldham, JM, Skodol, AE, Bender, DS): 239–48. American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005.Google Scholar
30 Livesley, WJ. Changing ideas about the treatment of borderline personality disorder. J Contemp Psychother 2004; 34: 185–92.Google Scholar
31 Paris, J. Personality disorders over time: precursors, course and outcome. J Personal Disord 2003; 17: 479–88.Google Scholar
32 Links, PS. Psychiatric rehabilitation model for borderline personality disorder. Can J Psychiatry 1993; 38 (suppl 1): S358.Google Scholar
33 Krawitz, R, Watson, C. Borderline Personality Disorder: A Practical Guide to Treatment. Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
34 Nehls, N. Being a case manager for persons with borderline personality disorder: perspectives of community mental health center clinicians. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2000; 14: 12–8.Google Scholar
35 Barton, R. Psychosocial rehabilitation services in community support systems: a review of outcomes and policy recommendations. Psychiatr Serv 1999; 50: 525–34.Google Scholar
36 Twamley, EW, Jeste, DV, Lehman, AF. Vocational rehabilitation in schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders: a literature review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Nerv Ment Dis 2003; 191: 515–23.Google Scholar
37 Ranger, M, Methuen, C, Rutter, D, Rao, B, Tyrer, P. Prevalence of personality disorder in the case-load of an inner-city assertive outreach team. Psychiatr Bull 2004; 28: 441–3.Google Scholar
38 Cohen, K, Edstrom, K, Smith-Papke, L. Identifying early dropouts from a rehabilitation program for psychiatric outpatients. Psychiatr Serv 1995; 46: 1076–8.Google Scholar
39 Ruiz-Sancho, AM, Smith, GW, Gunderson, JG. Psychoeducational approaches. In Handbook of Personality Disorders: Theory, Research and Treatment (ed Livesley, WJ): 460–74. Guilford, 2001.Google Scholar
40 Hoffman, PD, Fruzetti, AE. Psychoeducation. In Textbook of Personality Disorders (eds Oldham, JM, Skodol, AE, Bender, DS): 375–86. American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005.Google Scholar
41 Winston, A, Rosenthal, RN, Muran, JC. Supportive psychotherapy. In Handbook of Personality Disorders: Theory, Research and Treatment (ed Livesley, WJ): 344–58. Guilford, 2001.Google Scholar
42 Appelbaum, A. Supportive psychotherapy. In Textbook of Personality Disorders (eds Oldham, JM, Skodol, AE, Bender, DS): 335–46. American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005.Google Scholar
43 Livesley, WJ. A framework for an integrated approach to treatment. In Handbook of Personality Disorders: Theory, Research and Treatment: 570600. Guilford, 2001.Google Scholar
44 Dawson, D. The therapeutic relationship. In Clinical Assessment and Management of Severe Personality Disorders (ed Links, PS): 161–74. American Psychiatric Publishing, 1996.Google Scholar
45 Aviram, RB, Hellerstein, DJ, Gerson, J, Stanley, B. Adapting supportive psychotherapy for individuals with borderline personality disorder who self-injure or attempt suicide. J Psychiatr Pract 2004; 10: 145–55.Google Scholar
46 Hellerstein, DJ, Rosenthal, RN, Pinsker, H, Samstag, LW, Muran, JC, Winston, A. A randomized prospective study comparing supportive and dynamic therapies. Outcome and alliance. J Psychother Pract Res 1998; 7: 261–71.Google Scholar
47 Piper, WE, Joyce, AS, McCallum, M, Azim, HF. Interpretive and supportive forms of psychotherapy and patient personality variables. J Consult Clin Psychol 1998; 66: 558–67.Google Scholar
48 Rockland, LH. A review of supportive psychotherapy, 1986–1992. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1993; 44: 1053–60.Google Scholar
49 Holmes, J. Supportive psychotherapy. The search for positive meanings. Br J Psychiatry 1995; 167: 439–45.Google Scholar
50 Tyrer, P. Nidotherapy: a new approach to the treatment of personality disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002; 105: 469–71.Google Scholar
51 Tyrer, P, Sensky, T, Mitchard, S. Principles of nidotherapy in the treatment of persistent mental and personality disorders. Psychother Psychosom 2003; 72: 350–6.Google Scholar
52 Hennessey, M, McReynolds, CJ. Borderline personality disorder: psychosocial considerations and rehabilitation implications. Work 2001; 17: 97103.Google Scholar
53 Appelbaum, AH, Munich, RL. Reinventing moral treatment: the effects upon patients and staff members of a program of psychosocial rehabilitation. Psychiatr Hosp 1986; 17: 11–9.Google Scholar
54 Zanarini, MC, Frankenburg, FR, Hennen, J, Reich, DB, Silk, KR. Prediction of the 10-year course of borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 827–32.Google Scholar
55 Gunderson, JG, Bender, D, Sanislow, C, Yen, S, Rettew, JB, Dolan-Sewell, R, et al. Plausibility and possible determinants of sudden ‘remissions’ in borderline patients. Psychiatry 2003; 66: 111–9.Google Scholar
56 Fonagy, P, Bateman, A. Progress in the treatment of borderline personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188: 13.Google Scholar
57 Dawson, D, Macmillan, H. Relationship Management of the Borderline Patient. Brunner Mazel, 1993.Google Scholar
58 Gunderson, JG. Borderline Personality Disorder: A Clinical Guide. American Psychiatric Publishing, 2001.Google Scholar
59 Paris, J. Personality Disorders Over Time. American Psychiatric Publishing, 2003.Google Scholar
60 Lieb, K, Zanarini, MC, Schmahl, C, Linehan, MM, Bohus, M. Borderline personality disorder. Lancet 2004; 364: 453–61.Google Scholar
61 Prosser, D, Johnson, S, Kuipers, E, Szmukler, G, Bebbington, P, Thornicroft, G. Mental health, ‘burnout’ and job satisfaction among hospital and community-based mental health staff. Br J Psychiatry 1996; 169: 334–7.Google Scholar
62 Onyett, S, Pillinger, T, Muijen, M. Job satisfaction and burnout among members of community mental health teams. J Ment Health 1997; 6: 5566.Google Scholar
63 Tyrer, P, Al Muderis, O, Gulbrandsen, D. Distribution of case-load in community mental health teams. Psychiatr Bull 2001; 25: 10–2.Google Scholar
64 Bateman, AW, Fonagy, P. Effectiveness of psychotherapeutic treatment of personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 177: 138–43.Google Scholar
65 Gallop, R, O'Brien, L. Re-establishing psychodynamic theory as foundational knowledge for psychiatric/mental health nursing. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2003; 24: 213–27.Google Scholar
66 Sampson, MJ. The challenges community mental health teams face in their work with patients with personality disorders. In Personality Disorder and Community Mental Health Teams: A Practitioner's Guide (eds Sampson, M, McCubbin, R, Tyrer, P): 221–40. Wiley, 2006.Google Scholar
67 Krawitz, R. Borderline personality disorder: attitudinal change following training. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2004; 38: 554–9.Google Scholar
68 Hazelton, M, Rossiter, R, Milner, J. Managing the ‘unmanageable’: training staff in the use of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder. Contemp Nurse 2006; 21: 120–30.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Control conditions describing community mental healthcare (‘treatment as usual’)

Figure 1

Table 2 Treatment modalities associated with (severe) personality disorder

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.