Background: A primary goal of dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) is to reduce self-harm, but findings from empirical studies are inconclusive. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT in reducing self-harm in patients with personality disorder. Methods: Participants with a personality disorder and at least 5 days of self-harm in the previous year were randomised to receive 12 months of either DBT or treatment as usual (TAU). The primary outcome was the frequency of days with self-harm; secondary outcomes included borderline personality disorder symptoms, general psychiatric symptoms, subjective quality of life, and costs of care. Results: Forty patients each were randomised to DBT and TAU. In an intention-to-treat analysis, there was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction for self-harm (incidence rate ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.89–0.92, p < 0.001). For every 2 months spent in DBT, the risk of self-harm decreased by 9% relative to TAU. There was no evidence of differences on any secondary outcomes. The economic analysis revealed a total cost of a mean of 5,685 GBP (6,786 EUR) in DBT compared to a mean of 3,754 GBP (4,481 EUR) in TAU, but the difference was not significant (95% CI –603 to 4,599 GBP). Forty-eight per cent of patients completed DBT. They had a greater reduction in self-harm compared to dropouts (incidence rate ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.76–0.80, p < 0.001). Conclusions: DBT can be effective in reducing self-harm in patients with personality disorder, possibly incurring higher total treatment costs. The effect is stronger in those who complete treatment. Future research should explore how to improve treatment adherence.

Variations in detention rates across Europe appear to be influenced by professionals' ethics and attitudes, sociodemographic variables, the public's preoccupation about risk arising from mental illness and the respective legal framework.

No abstract

Advance statements documenting mental health service consumers' preferences for treatment during a future mental health crisis or period of incapacity have gained currency in recent years in the United States and some European countries. Several kinds of advance statements have emerged -- some as legal instruments, others as treatment planning methods -- but no formal comparison has been made among them. This article reviews the literature in English and German to develop a comparative typology of advance statements: joint crisis plans, crisis cards, treatment plans, wellness recovery action plans, and psychiatric advance directives (with and without formal facilitation). The features that distinguish them are the extent to which they are legally binding, whether health care providers are involved in their production, and whether an independent facilitator assists in their production. The differing nature of advance statements is related to the diverse models of care upon which they are based and the legislative and service contexts in which they have been developed. However, there is recent convergence between the United Kingdom and the United States with respect to research interventions that facilitate the production of advance statements, as evidence emerges for the effectiveness of facilitated psychiatric advance directives and joint crisis plans. Different types of advance statements can coexist and in some cases may interact in complementary ways. However, the relationship of advance statements to involuntary treatment is more problematic, as is their effective implementation in many mental health service settings.

No abstract