Effectiveness of a 6-Week Day Hospital Treatment for Personality Disorders: Data From a Naturalistic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report on the effectiveness of a time-limited day-hospital crisis treatment for personality disorders (PDs) in a naturalistic setting. METHOD: Archival data from 260 patients diagnosed with PDs (202 female, 58 male) who completed a 6-week day-hospital treatment program between 2012 and 2015 were analyzed. Treatment was available upon referral by psychiatrists at local emergency rooms and short-term hospitalization units. Pre-post change was assessed using the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2). RESULTS: Patients significantly improved during treatment on the total OQ-45.2 scale and its 3 subscales. Pre-post changes yielded large effect sizes for the total OQ-45.2 scale and the Symptom Distress subscale, and moderate effect sizes for the Interpersonal Relations and Social Role subscales. Reliable change was observed for 55% of patients for the total scale. Younger patients (18 to 24 y of age) showed larger improvements on social role satisfaction than patients over the age of 30. Overall improvement was larger for patients engaged in social participation at the beginning of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study conducted in a naturalistic setting suggests that a time-limited, 6-week day-hospital treatment program tailored to patients wiith PDs may be effective in reducing overall symptomatology in patients experiencing a crisis episode.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".