Comparison of treatment outcomes in severe personality disorder patients with or without substance use disorders: a 36-month prospective pragmatic follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent personality disorder (PD) and substance use disorder (SUD) are common in clinical practice. However, SUD is the main criterion for study exclusion in most psychotherapeutic studies of PD. As a result, data on treatment outcomes in patients with concurrent PD/SUD are scarce. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 51 patients diagnosed with severe PD and admitted for psychotherapeutic treatment as a part of routine mental health care. All patients were diagnosed with PD according to the Structured Clinical Interview for PD. Patients were further assessed (DSM-IV diagnostic criteria) to check for the presence of concurrent SUD, with 28 patients diagnosed with both disorders (PD-SUD). These 28 cases were then compared to the 23 patients without SUD (PD-nSUD) in terms of psychiatric hospitalizations and psychiatric emergency room (ER) visits before and during the 6-month therapeutic intervention and every 6 months thereafter for a total of 36 months. RESULTS: The baseline clinical characteristics correspond to a sample of PD patients (78% met DSM-IV criteria for borderline PD) with poor general functioning and a high prevalence of suicide attempts and self-harm behaviors. Altogether, the five outcome variables - the proportion and the number of psychiatric inpatient admissions, the number of days hospitalized, and the proportion and the number of psychiatric ER visits - improved significantly during the treatment period, and this improvement was maintained throughout the follow-up period. Although PD-SUD patients had more psychiatric hospitalizations and ER visits than PD-nSUD patients during follow-up, the differences between these two groups remained stable over the study period indicating that the treatment was equally effective in both groups. CONCLUSION: Specialized psychotherapy for severe PD can be effectively applied in patients with concurrent PD-SUD under usual practice conditions. These findings suggest that exclusion of patients with dual disorders from specialized treatments is unjustified

Comparison of treatment outcomes in severe personality disorder patients with or without substance use disorders : a 36-month prospective pragmatic follow-up study

Concurrent personality disorder (PD) and substance use disorder (SUD) are common in clinical practice. However, SUD is the main criterion for study exclusion in most psychotherapeutic studies of PD. As a result, data on treatment outcomes in patients with concurrent PD/SUD are scarce. The study sample consisted of 51 patients diagnosed with severe PD and admitted for psychotherapeutic treatment as a part of routine mental health care. All patients were diagnosed with PD according to the Structured Clinical Interview for PD. Patients were further assessed (DSM-IV diagnostic criteria) to check for the presence of concurrent SUD, with 28 patients diagnosed with both disorders (PD-SUD). These 28 cases were then compared to the 23 patients without SUD (PD-nSUD) in terms of psychiatric hospitalizations and psychiatric emergency room (ER) visits before and during the 6-month therapeutic intervention and every 6 months thereafter for a total of 36 months. The baseline clinical characteristics correspond to a sample of PD patients (78% met DSM-IV criteria for borderline PD) with poor general functioning and a high prevalence of suicide attempts and self-harm behaviors. Altogether, the five outcome variables - the proportion and the number of psychiatric inpatient admissions, the number of days hospitalized, and the proportion and the number of psychiatric ER visits - improved significantly during the treatment period, and this improvement was maintained throughout the follow-up period. Although PD-SUD patients had more psychiatric hospitalizations and ER visits than PD-nSUD patients during follow-up, the differences between these two groups remained stable over the study period indicating that the treatment was equally effective in both groups. Specialized psychotherapy for severe PD can be effectively applied in patients with concurrent PD-SUD under usual practice conditions. These findings suggest that exclusion of patients with dual disorders from specialized treatments is unjustified

Comparison of treatment outcomes in severe personality disorder patients with or without substance use disorders: a 36-month prospective pragmatic follow-up study.

Background: Concurrent personality disorder (PD) and substance use disorder (SUD) are common in clinical practice. However, SUD is the main criterion for study exclusion in most psychotherapeutic studies of PD. As a result, data on treatment outcomes in patients with concurrent PD/SUD are scarce. Methods: The study sample consisted of 51 patients diagnosed with severe PD and admitted for psychotherapeutic treatment as a part of routine mental health care. All patients were diagnosed with PD according to the Structured Clinical Interview for PD. Patients were further assessed (DSM-IV diagnostic criteria) to check for the presence of concurrent SUD, with 28 patients diagnosed with both disorders (PD-SUD). These 28 cases were then compared to the 23 patients without SUD (PD-nSUD) in terms of psychiatric hospitalizations and psychiatric emergency room (ER) visits before and during the 6-month therapeutic intervention and every 6 months thereafter for a total of 36 months. Results: The baseline clinical characteristics correspond to a sample of PD patients (78% met DSM-IV criteria for borderline PD) with poor general functioning and a high prevalence of suicide attempts and self-harm behaviors. Altogether, the five outcome variables - the proportion and the number of psychiatric inpatient admissions, the number of days hospitalized, and the proportion and the number of psychiatric ER visits - improved significantly during the treatment period, and this improvement was maintained throughout the follow-up period. Although PD-SUD patients had more psychiatric hospitalizations and ER visits than PD-nSUD patients during follow-up, the differences between these two groups remained stable over the study period indicating that the treatment was equally effective in both groups. Conclusion: Specialized psychotherapy for severe PD can be effectively applied in patients with concurrent PD-SUD under usual practice conditions. These findings suggest that exclusion of patients with dual disorders from specialized treatments is unjustified

Differential item and test functioning methodology indicated that item response bias was not a substantial cause of country differences in mental well-being

Objectives Establishing the cross-cultural equivalence of the mental well-being construct, as measured with the Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), by studying potential construct validity biases in two countries with previously reported score differences. Study Design and Setting We compared the WEMWBS total scores and item responses in Scotland (N = 779) and Catalonia (N = 1,900) general population samples. To assess whether the questionnaire spuriously favored higher scores in Catalonia, we tested for differential item functioning (DIF) by applying ordinal logistic regression on Item Response Theory scores. DIF was tested with likelihood ratio tests and standard effect measures (McFadden Pseudo R2, >0.13; relative parameter change, >5%), and differential test functioning (DTF) was tested by plotting differences between full-test and purified (i.e., without DIF items) score estimates. Results Catalonia showed higher levels of mental well-being than Scotland (Cohen d = 0.84). Three of 14 WEMWBS items showed small amounts of DIF. DIF did not accrue to DTF, as shown by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, 0.999) and case-by-case differences (maximum, 0.12 SD) between total and purified scores. Population differences remained mainly constant across sociodemographics and health outcomes. Conclusion The WEMWBS measures a distinct well-being construct that is stable across countries, implying that Scotland and Catalonia populations are effectively different in the distribution of mental well-being. This result adds to previous psychometric information and supports WEMWBS as a valid unbiased measures for individual and cross-cultural comparisons

Detection of anxiety disorders in Primary Care: a meta-analysis of assisted andunassisted diagnoses

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that general practitioners (GPs) fail to diagnose up to half of common mental disorder cases. Yet no previous research has systematically summarized the evidence in the case of anxiety disorders. The aim of this review was to systematically assess and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of GPs' assisted (i.e., using severity scales/diagnostic instruments) and unassisted (without such tools) diagnoses of anxiety disorders. METHODS: Systematic review (PROSPERO registry CRD42013006736) was conducted. Embase, Ovid Journals - Ovid SP Medline, Pubmed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct were searched from January 1980 through June 2014. Seven investigators, working in pairs, evaluated studies for eligibility. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool version 2 (QUADAS-2). The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnoses of any anxiety disorder. We pooled sensitivity and specificity levels from included studies using bivariate meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total sample of 34,902 patients. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated at 44.5% (95% CI 33.7-55.9%) and 90.8% (95% CI 87-93.5%). GPs' sensitivity was higher when diagnoses were assisted (63.6%, 95% CI 50.3-75.1%) than when unassisted (30.5%, 95% CI 20.7-42.5%) to the expense of some specificity loss (87.9%, 95% CI 81.3-92.4% vs. 91.4%, 95% CI 86.6-94.6%, respectively). Identification rates remained constant over time (P-value = .998). CONCLUSIONS: The use of diagnostic tools might improve detection of anxiety disorders in "primary care."This study was funded by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Health, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, FEDER PI10/00530, Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria ISCIII (FI11/00154), and by DIUE Generalitat de Catalunya (2014 SGR 748

Health conditions and role limitation in three European Regions: a public-health perspective

OBJECTIVE: To describe the distribution of role limitation in the European population aged 18-64 years and to examine the contribution of health conditions to role limitation using a public-health approach. METHODS: Representative samples of the adult general population (n=13,666) aged 18-64 years from 10 European countries of the World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys Initiative, grouped into three regions: Central-Western, Southern and Central-Eastern. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 3.0) was used to assess six mental disorders and standard checklists for seven physical conditions. Days with full and with partial role limitation in the month previous to the interview were reported (WMH-WHODAS). Population Attributable Fraction (PAFs) of full and partial role limitation were estimated. RESULTS: Health conditions explained a large proportion of full role limitation (PAF=62.6%) and somewhat less of partial role limitation (46.6%). Chronic pain was the single condition that consistently contributed to explain both disability measures in all European Regions. Mental disorders were the most important contributors to full and partial role limitation in Central-Western and Southern Europe. In Central-Eastern Europe, where mental disorders were less prevalent, physical conditions, especially cardiovascular diseases, were the highest contributors to disability. CONCLUSION: The contribution of health conditions to role limitation in the three European regions studied is high. Mental disorders are associated with the largest impact in most of the regions. There is a need for mainstreaming disability in the public health agenda to reduce the role limitation associated with health conditions. The cross-regional differences found require further investigation.The ESEMeD project is funded by the European Commission (contracts QLG5-1999-01042; SANCO 2004123 and EAHC 20081308), the Piedmont Region (Italy), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FIS 00/0028), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain (SAF 2000-158-CE), Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos/nIII (CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP), and other local agencies and by an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKlin

Health conditions and role limitation in three European Regions: a public-health perspective

OBJECTIVE: To describe the distribution of role limitation in the European population aged 18-64 years and to examine the contribution of health conditions to role limitation using a public-health approach. METHODS: Representative samples of the adult general population (n=13,666) aged 18-64 years from 10 European countries of the World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys Initiative, grouped into three regions: Central-Western, Southern and Central-Eastern. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 3.0) was used to assess six mental disorders and standard checklists for seven physical conditions. Days with full and with partial role limitation in the month previous to the interview were reported (WMH-WHODAS). Population Attributable Fraction (PAFs) of full and partial role limitation were estimated. RESULTS: Health conditions explained a large proportion of full role limitation (PAF=62.6%) and somewhat less of partial role limitation (46.6%). Chronic pain was the single condition that consistently contributed to explain both disability measures in all European Regions. Mental disorders were the most important contributors to full and partial role limitation in Central-Western and Southern Europe. In Central-Eastern Europe, where mental disorders were less prevalent, physical conditions, especially cardiovascular diseases, were the highest contributors to disability. CONCLUSION: The contribution of health conditions to role limitation in the three European regions studied is high. Mental disorders are associated with the largest impact in most of the regions. There is a need for mainstreaming disability in the public health agenda to reduce the role limitation associated with health conditions. The cross-regional differences found require further investigation.The ESEMeD project is funded by the European Commission (contracts QLG5-1999-01042; SANCO 2004123 and EAHC 20081308), the Piedmont Region (Italy), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FIS 00/0028), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain (SAF 2000-158-CE), Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos/nIII (CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP), and other local agencies and by an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKlin

Relative WHODAS dimension contributions to the indirect effect of disability on perceived health VAS for each condition, overall sample.

<p>WMH Surveys (Alcohol Abuse and Drug Abuse are not represented because their respective overall indirect effect is not significant).</p

General mediation model used in analyses.

<p>The figure displays the general mediation model that has been used to estimate effects according to path-diagrammatic conventions. Squares represent variables. <i>D_i</i> is one of the <i>p = 19</i> disorders under consideration, <i>M_j</i> is one of the <i>k = 8</i> mediating variables (disability dimensions), and VAS is the final outcome. Arrows represent regression slope parameters from independent variables to outcomes. The <i>δ</i> parameters stand for the direct effect regression from disorders to the final outcome. The <i>ι</i> parameters indicate the two regression components of the disorder indirect effects as mediated by <i>M</i>: a) <i>p</i> x <i>k</i> regression parameters from <i>D</i> to <i>M</i> (<i>ι_Dij</i>) and b) k regression parameters from <i>M</i> to VAS (<i>ι_M</i>_j). For each disorder the model can be decomposed in two paths: 1) VAS regressed on disorders, and 2) a causal mediation chain of VAS regressed on mediators which in turn are regressed on disorders. The partial indirect effect of a certain disorder <i>D_i</i> through a mediator <i>M_j</i> is <i>ι_Dij</i> x <i>ι_Mj</i>, whereas its total indirect effect is the sum of the <i>k</i> products across mediators (). Total effects for a disorder are the sum of direct and total indirect effect (<i>δ_i</i>+<i>Ι_i</i>). Directionality cannot be assumed as a causal association in our study due to its cross-sectional, observational nature. Also notice that in the general model, the effect of each disorder on each mediator is adjusted by the direct effect of the remaining disorders (thus controlling for comorbidity), while the impact of a disorder on VAS is controlled by the total effects of the other disorders. Disability is thus fully taken into account, even though it is decomposed in subscales. The effects on VAS are also controlled for age, gender, employment status and country.</p