Mentalization based treatment for a broad range of personality disorders: a naturalistic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have observed that mentalization-based treatment (MBT) is an effective treatment for borderline personality disorder (BPD), but its effectiveness for other personality disorders (PDs) has hardly been examined. Additionally, the evidence supporting the claim that MBT improves mentalizing capacity is scarce. The present study examined whether (i) patients with a broad range of PDs enrolled in an MBT program would improve on several outcome measures (ii) mentalizing capacity would improve over time; (iii) patients with BPD would improve more than those with non-borderline PDs. METHOD: Personality disorders, psychiatric symptoms, social functioning, maladaptive personality functioning and mentalizing capacity were measured in a group of individuals with various PDs (n = 46) that received MBT. Assessments were made at baseline and after 6, 12, and 18 months of treatment. The severity of psychiatric symptoms, measured using the Outcome Questionnaire 45, was the primary outcome variable. RESULTS: .01). Bigger effect sizes were observed for BPD patients (n = 25) than for patients with non-BPD (n = 21), but the difference failed to reach statistical significance (p = 0.06). A primary analysis showed that the decrease in psychiatric symptoms was significant in BPD patients (p = 0.01), not in non-BPD (p = 0.19) patients. However, a sufficiently powered secondary analysis with imputed data showed that non-BPD patients reported a significant decrease in psychiatric symptoms too (p = 0.01). Mentalizing capacity of the whole group improved over time (d = .68 on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and 1.46 on the Social Cognition and Object Relations System). DISCUSSION: These results suggest that MBT coincides with symptomatic and functional improvement across a broad range of PDs and shows that MBT is associated with improvements in mentalizing capacity. As the study is not experimental in design, we cannot make causal claims. CONCLUSION: Mentalization-based treatment may be an effective treatment for patients with a broad range of PDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study design was approved by the Leiden University Ethical Committee.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".