Search

Background: Guidelines for the treatment and management of 'personality disorders' have been introduced to provide guidance on best practice based on evidence and views of key stakeholders. However, guidance varies and there is yet to be an overall, internationally recognised consensus on the best mental health care for people with 'personality disorders'. Aims: We aimed to identify and synthesise recommendations made by different mental health organisations from across the world on community treatment for people with 'personality disorders'. Methods: This systematic review consisted of three stages: 1. systematic literature and guideline search, 2. quality appraisal, and 3. data synthesis. We combined a search strategy involving both systematic searching of bibliographic databases and supplementary search methods of grey literature. Key informants were also contacted to further identify relevant guidelines. Codebook thematic analysis was then conducted. The quality of all included guidelines was assessed and considered alongside results. Results: After synthesising 29 guidelines from 11 countries and 1 international organisation, we identified four main domains, with a total of 27 themes. Important key principles on which there was consensus included continuity of care, equity of access, accessibility of services, availability of specialist care, taking a whole systems approach, trauma informed approaches, and collaborative care planning and decision making. Conclusions: Existing international guidelines shared consensus on a set of principles for the community treatment of 'personality disorders'. However, half of the guidelines were of lower methodological quality, with many recommendations not backed by evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a recognised need to develop clear service models and pathways to provide high quality care in the community for people with complex emotional needs, who may have been given a "personality disorder" diagnosis. Services should be informed by the views of people with these experiences. Aims: To identify and synthesise qualitative studies on service user experiences of community mental health care for Complex Emotional Needs. Methods: We searched six bibliographic databases for papers published since 2003. We included peer reviewed studies reporting data on service user experiences and views about good care from community-based mental health services for adults with CEN, including generic mental health services and specialist "personality disorder" services. Studies using any qualitative method were included and thematic synthesis used to identify over-arching themes. Results: Forty-seven papers were included. Main themes were: 1) The need for a long-term perspective on treatment journeys; 2) The need for individualised and holistic care; 3) Large variations in accessibility and quality of mental health services; 4) The centrality of therapeutic relationships; 5) Impacts of 'personality disorder' diagnosis. Themes tended to recur across studies from different countries and years. Discussion: Recurrent major themes included wanting support that is individualised and holistic, provides continuity over long journeys towards recovery, and that is delivered by empathetic and well-informed clinicians who are hopeful but realistic about the prospects of treatment. Care that met these simple and clearly stated priorities tended to be restricted to often limited periods of treatment by specialist "personality disorder" services: generic and primary care services were often reported as far from adequate. There is an urgent need to co-design and test strategies for improving long-term support and treatment care for people with "personality disorders" throughout the mental health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over 600 RCTs have demonstrated the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for children and young people's mental health, but little is known about the long-term outcomes. This systematic review sought to establish whether the effects of selective and indicated interventions were sustained at 12 months. Method: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on studies reporting medium term outcomes (12 months after end of intervention). Findings: We identified 138 trials with 12-month follow-up data, yielding 165 comparisons, 99 of which also reported outcomes at end of intervention, yielding 117 comparisons. We found evidence of effect relative to control at end of intervention (K = 115, g = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.30–0.47 I2 = 84.19%, N = 13,982) which was maintained at 12 months (K = 165, g = 0.31, CI: 0.25–0.37, I2 = 77.35%, N = 25,652) across a range of diagnostic groups. We explored the impact of potential moderators on outcome, including modality, format and intensity of intervention, selective or indicated intervention, site of delivery, professional/para-professional and fidelity of delivery. We assessed both risk of study bias and publication bias. Conclusions: Psychosocial interventions provided in a range of settings by professionals and paraprofessionals can deliver lasting benefits. High levels of heterogeneity, moderate to high risk of bias for most studies and evidence of publication bias require caution in interpreting the results. Lack of studies in diagnostic groups such as ADHD and self-harm limit the conclusions that can be drawn. Programmes that increase such interventions' availability are justified by the benefits to children and young people and the decreased likelihood of disorder in adulthood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]