Objective: At present, the most frequently investigated psychosocial intervention for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and long-term effectiveness of DBT. Method: Systematic bibliographic research was undertaken to find relevant literature from online databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, PsychSpider, Medline). We excluded studies in which patients with diagnoses other than BPD were treated, the treatment did not comprise all components specified in the DBT manual or in the suggestions for inpatient DBT programs, patients failed to be diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and the intervention group comprised fewer than 10 patients. Using a mixed-effect hierarchical modeling approach, we calculated global effect sizes and effect sizes for suicidal and self-injurious behaviors. Results: Calculations of postintervention global effect sizes were based on 16 studies. Of these, 8 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 8 were neither randomized nor controlled (nRCT). The dropout rate was 27.3% pre-to posttreatment. A moderate global effect and a moderate effect size for suicidal and self-injurious behaviors were found, when including a moderator for RCTs with borderline-specific treatments. There was no evidence for the influence of other moderators (e.g., quality of studies, setting, duration of intervention). A small impairment was shown from posttreatment to follow-up, including 5 RCTs only. Conclusions: Future research should compare DBT with other active borderline-specific treatments that have also demonstrated their efficacy using several long-term follow-up assessment points.

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of work-related cognitive-behavioral treatment (W-CBT) with that of cognitive-behavioral treatment as usual (CBT-AU) for employees on sick leave as a result of a major depressive disorder (MDD). We collected data for 26 matched outpatients at pre- and posttreatment, as well as at 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were the days of incapacity to work (DIW) as well as self-report measures (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI], Symptom Checklist 90-R [GSI], Life Satisfaction Questionnaire [FLZ]). We analyzed data with hierarchical linear modeling in a 2-level model. Therapy effects were defined in 3 ways: effect size (ES), response (based on the reliable change index), and remission compared with the general population's symptom level. The DIW were reduced significantly after both types of treatment, but employees showed even fewer DIW after W-CBT. At follow-up, significantly more employees were working as a result of W-CBT than with CBT-AU. Significant improvements on scores of self-rating measures corresponded with moderate-to-large effect sizes for both treatment types. Approximately 2 thirds of the treated employees were categorized as unimpaired on BDI scores at posttreatment and at follow-up. At least 1 half of the employees were classified as unimpaired on GSI scores at both assessment points. In future research, a randomized controlled trial should be conducted using a larger sample size to investigate the impact of moderators (e.g., employees at different branches of the company). Findings provided support for using common CBT techniques to enhance return to work without losing expected improvements at the symptom level.

Zusammenfassung. Theoretischer Hintergrund: Obwohl die Partnerschaftszufriedenheit zum Erfolg bzw. Misserfolg einer Behandlung erheblich beitragen kann, gibt es im deutschsprachigen Raum kein ökonomisches, reliables und valides Instrument. Fragestellung: Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit war es daher eine Kurzform des Partnerschaftsfragebogen (PFB-K) zu entwickeln. Methode: Der PFB-K wurde anhand einer aktuellen Befragung aus dem Jahr 2011 (N = 1.390) evaluiert und normiert. Ergebnisse: Für den Gesamtwert des PFB-K wurden gute interne Konsistenzen (Gesamt: α = .84; Frauen: α = .87; Männer: α = .81) ermittelt. Eine Normierung erfolgte nach Geschlecht und Alter (19–39, 40–59 und 60–89 Jahre) getrennt. Schlussfolgerungen: Die Kurzform kann in der Praxis und Forschung eingesetzt werden. Eine Kreuzvalidierung anhand einer klinischen Stichprobe steht aus.

No abstract

No abstract