Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
BMC Psychiatry. 2023 Jan 21;23(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04483-0.
BACKGROUND: Quality of care and access to effective interventions have been widely criticised as limited for people diagnosed with 'personality disorder' or who have comparable needs (described in some recent papers as "Complex Emotional Needs" (CEN). It is important to identify effective interventions and the optimal context and mode of delivery for people with CEN. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions delivered in community and outpatient settings in treating symptoms associated with 'personality disorder', and the moderating effects of treatment-related variables. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, HMIC, ASSIA for articles published in English, from inception to November 23, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials examining interventions provided in community or outpatient settings for CEN. The primary outcome was 'personality disorder' symptoms, while secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and global psychiatric symptoms. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for each outcome, and meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the moderating effects of treatment characteristics. The quality of the studies and the degree of publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: We included 54 trials (n = 3716 participants) in the meta-analysis. We found a large effect size (g = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.01, p < 0.0001) favoring interventions for 'borderline personality disorder' (BPD) symptoms over Treatment as Usual or Waitlist (TAU/WL), and the efficacy was maintained at follow-up (g = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.65, p = 0.002). Interventions effectively reduced anxiety symptoms (g = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.95, p = 0.002), depressive symptoms (g = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.83, p < 0.0001), and global psychiatric symptoms (g = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.66, p < 0.0001) compared to TAU/WL. The intervention types were equally effective in treating all symptom categories assessed. Treatment duration and treatment intensity did not moderate the effectiveness of the interventions for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: People with a 'personality disorder' diagnosis benefited from psychological and psychosocial interventions delivered in community or outpatient settings, with all therapeutic approaches showing similar effectiveness. Mental health services should provide people with CEN with specialised treatments in accordance with the availability and the patients' preferences.
背景:人们普遍批评针对被诊断为“人格障碍”或具有类似需求的人(在最近的一些论文中被描述为“复杂情感需求”(CEN))的护理质量和有效干预措施的获取有限。为具有 CEN 的人确定有效的干预措施以及最佳的实施环境和模式非常重要。我们旨在调查在社区和门诊环境中提供的心理社会干预措施对治疗与“人格障碍”相关症状的有效性,并探讨治疗相关变量的调节作用。
方法:我们系统地检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO、CINAHL、HMIC 和 ASSIA 自成立以来至 2020 年 11 月 23 日发表的英文文章。我们纳入了在社区或门诊环境中为 CEN 提供干预措施的随机对照试验。主要结局为“人格障碍”症状,次要结局包括焦虑症状、抑郁症状和总体精神病症状。对每个结局进行了随机效应荟萃分析,并进行了荟萃回归分析以评估治疗特征的调节作用。评估了研究的质量和发表偏倚的程度。
结果:我们对 54 项试验(n=3716 名参与者)进行了荟萃分析。我们发现干预措施对“边缘型人格障碍”(BPD)症状的效果较大(g=0.78,95%CI:0.56 至 1.01,p<0.0001),优于常规治疗或等待名单(TAU/WL),并且在随访时仍保持疗效(g=1.01,95%CI:0.37 至 1.65,p=0.002)。干预措施有效降低了焦虑症状(g=0.58,95%CI:0.21 至 0.95,p=0.002)、抑郁症状(g=0.57,95%CI:0.32 至 0.83,p<0.0001)和总体精神病症状(g=0.50,95%CI:0.35 至 0.66,p<0.0001)与 TAU/WL 相比。与 TAU/WL 相比,各种治疗类型在治疗所有评估症状类别方面同样有效。治疗持续时间和治疗强度并没有调节干预措施对任何结局的有效性。
结论:在社区或门诊环境中接受心理和心理社会干预的患有“人格障碍”诊断的人受益,所有治疗方法均显示出相似的疗效。精神卫生服务机构应根据可用性和患者偏好为具有 CEN 的人提供专门的治疗。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-5-4
Health Technol Assess. 2020-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Health Technol Assess. 2020-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-6-2
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2020-10
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-5-4
Front Psychol. 2020-4-15
Personal Ment Health. 2020-8