Effectiveness of inpatient dialectical behavioral therapy for borderline personality disorder: a controlled trial

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00174-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) was initially developed and evaluated as an outpatient treatment program for chronically suicidal individuals meeting criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Within the last few years, several adaptations to specific settings have been developed. This study aims to evaluate a three-month DBT inpatient treatment program. Clinical outcomes, including changes on measures of psychopathology and frequency of self-mutilating acts, were assessed for 50 female patients meeting criteria for BPD. Thirty-one patients had participated in a DBT inpatient program, and 19 patients had been placed on a waiting list and received treatment as usual in the community. Post-testing was conducted four months after the initial assessment (i.e. four weeks after discharge for the DBT group). Pre–post-comparison showed significant changes for the DBT group on 10 of 11 psychopathological variables and significant reductions in self-injurious behavior. The waiting list group did not show any significant changes at the four-months point. The DBT group improved significantly more than participants on the waiting list on seven of the nine variables analyzed, including depression, anxiety, interpersonal functioning, social adjustment, global psychopathology and self-mutilation. Analyses based on Jacobson’s criteria for clinically relevant change indicated that 42% of those receiving DBT had clinically recovered on a general measure of psychopathology. The data suggest that three months of inpatient DBT treatment is significantly superior to non-specific outpatient treatment. Within a relatively short time frame, improvement was found across a broad range of psychopathological features. Stability of the recovery after one month following discharge, however, was not evaluated and requires further study.

Introduction

Inpatient treatment of patients meeting criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is both widespread (Loranger et al., 1994) and expensive (40% of the highest utilizers of psychiatric services in the United States) (Geller, 1986). Research studies evaluating the effectiveness of inpatient treatment approaches are limited. Currently, psychoanalytic treatment and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) are recommended as treatments of choice (American Psychiatric Association, 2001). Bateman & Fonagy, 1999, Bateman & Fonagy, 2001 compared an 18-month psychoanalytically oriented partial hospitalization program to referral to outpatient standard care (TAU). They found significantly fewer suicide attempts in the partial hospital program compared to TAU after six months of treatment. The number of individuals who were no longer parasuicidal (i.e. no longer attempting suicide or intentionally self-injuring) was significantly lower in the partial hospitalization group by 12 months, as were scores on the global severity scale of the SCL-90-R after 18 months of treatment. Follow-up treatment consisted of 18 months of outpatient psychoanalytically oriented group therapy. Results indicated further significant improvement with continued treatment.

Dialectical Behavioral Therapy was developed by Linehan (Linehan, 1993a, Linehan, 1993b, Linehan, Armstrong, Suarez, Allmon and Heard, 1991) as a comprehensive principle-driven outpatient treatment program for individuals meeting criteria for BPD. In a controlled randomized one-year treatment study with chronically suicidal BPD patients, Linehan found that individuals assigned to standard outpatient DBT had more positive outcomes than those assigned to outpatient psychotherapists or mental health treatment centers in the community. Superiority of the outcomes were demonstrated across a number of outcome domains, including reduction of parasuicidal behaviors (i.e. intentional self-injury and suicide attempts), length and frequency of hospitalization, treatment drop out, and improvements in anger regulation and global and interpersonal functioning (Linehan, Armstrong, Suarez, Allmon and Heard, 1991, Linehan, Heard and Armstrong, 1993, Linehan, Tutek, Heard and Armstrong, 1994). Subsequent reanalysis of the data indicated that superior DBT efficacy could not be accounted for by differences in treatment dose in the two conditions (Linehan et al., 1993). Although these finding have been substantially replicated by Linehan et al. (2002) as well as other investigators of outpatient DBT (Verheul et al., 2003), the number of controlled research studies on DBT is still limited. In addition to the standard outpatient program, DBT has been adapted to various specific settings: family and adolescent treatments (Miller, Ratey, Linehan, Wetzler, & Leigh, 1997), forensic settings, and case management, as well as inpatient and day-treatment settings.

In principle, limiting hospitalization is an important part of the DBT philosophy. However, recent data confirmed the clinical evidence that about 80% of BPD patients in Germany experience frequent inpatient treatments on an average of 65 days per year (Jerschke, Meixner, Richter, & Bohus, 1998). Given these data, it is critically important to develop structured and specific inpatient programs for this group of patients. The inpatient DBT treatment program was initially developed by Charles Swenson at New York Hospital, White Plains (Swenson, Sanderson, Dulit, & Linehan, 2001). We have adapted it to European conditions as described in detail previously (Bohus & Bathruff, 2000; Bohus et al., 2000). The three-month treatment has as its goal reductions in four high priority target areas: suicidal behaviors, intentional self-injurious behaviors, treatment interfering behaviors and behaviors that prolong hospitalization. The inpatient DBT staff creates a validating treatment milieu balanced with an emphasis on orienting and educating new patients, identifying and prioritizing their treatment targets and rigorous application of behavior change-oriented treatment strategies. Inpatient DBT treatment procedures include contingency management procedures, skills training including mindfulness training and coaching, behavioral analysis, structured response protocols to suicidal and egregious behaviors on the unit, and consultation team meetings for DBT staff. In addition to the program of Swenson et al., we administered a manualized body-oriented therapy module to improve the acceptance of body experiences and to teach body-oriented distress tolerance skills.

Two studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of DBT inpatient treatment. Barley et al. (1993) used a quasi-experimental design to compare the frequency of parasuicidal acts for three time periods: at pre-treatment for 19 months prior to introducing DBT on an inpatient unit, during the 10 months when DBT was being introduced, and over the 14 months while DBT was in full operation. Parasuicidal rates were significantly lower during the third time period than during the other two, and similar rates did not change throughout the entire 43 months on a traditional general psychiatric unit in the same hospital. Bohus, Haaf, Stiglmayr, Pohl, Boehme, and Linehan (2000) have previously published the pre–post-data of 24 female patients who had finished a three-months inpatient DBT treatment. Comparing the month prior to hospitalization and the month after discharge, the authors found significant improvements in ratings of depression, dissociation, anxiety and global stress as well as a highly significant decrease in the number of self-mutilating acts. Despite of these promising results (mean effect sizes at 1.04), the interpretation of the data was hampered by the lack of a control group, the limited number of patients and the heterogeneity of the participants. Due to geographical circumstances, about half of the patients had the opportunity to continue DBT as outpatients after discharge, while the others had to be referred to non-specific treatment as usual. Post-hoc analyses of the data revealed significant differences between these two groups regarding inpatient treatment effectiveness.

In this study, we present data from a group of patients none of whom had the opportunity to continue a DBT outpatient program after the discharge and compared treatment outcome with a naturalistic waiting list (WL). In addition, we examined predictors of therapy response.

Section snippets

Methods

The study was conducted at the Borderline Research Unit of the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Freiburg, Medical School.

Results

There were no between-group differences at pre-treatment on any outcome measure. In both groups, 68% reported self-mutilating behavior within the four weeks immediately before study entry. To examine whether difficult cases “weeded out” through self-selection in DBT but not in the WL group, we compared SCL-90-R (GSI) of the dropout group and the completers at admission and found no significant differences (t=−1.294; p=0.204).

Discussion

A number of findings emerged from this study. First, when assessed one-month after discharge from a three months DBT inpatient treatment program, BPD patients showed significant reductions in the frequency of self-mutilation and significant improvement on eight of nine measures of clinical outcome, including improvements in dissociation, depression, anxiety, interpersonal functioning, social adjustment, and global psychopathology. Second, when compared to individuals put on a waiting list for

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank K. Kendler for statistical advice. This work was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), and the Borderline Personality Disorder Research Foundation (BPDRF), New York.

References (39)

  • M. Bohus et al.

    Dialektisch Behaviorale Therapie der Borderline-Störung im stationären Setting

    Psychotherapie im Dialog

    (2000)
  • L. Breiman et al.

    Classification and regression trees

    (1984)
  • J. Cohen

    Statistical power for the behavioral sciences

    (1977)
  • L.R. Derogatis

    SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring and procedures manual II

    (1977)
  • J. Endicott et al.

    The global assessment scale. A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1976)
  • M.B. First et al.

    User’s guide for the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV personality disorders (SCID-II)

    (1996)
  • M.B. First et al.

    User’s guide for the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders (SCID-I)—clinical version

    (1997)
  • G. Franke

    Symptom Checkliste (SCL-90-R)

    (1995)
  • J.L. Geller

    In again, out again: preliminary evaluation of a state hospital’s worst recidivists

    Hospital and Community Psychiatry

    (1986)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text