The addition of a goal-based motivational interview to treatment as usual to enhance engagement and reduce dropouts in a personality disorder treatment service: results of a feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial

Mary McMurran, W Miles Cox, Diane Whitham, Lucy Hedges, Mary McMurran, W Miles Cox, Diane Whitham, Lucy Hedges

Abstract

Background: There are high rates of treatment non-completion for personality disorder and those who do not complete treatment have poorer outcomes. A goal-based motivational interview may increase service users' readiness to engage with therapy and so enhance treatment retention. We conducted a feasibility study to inform the design of a randomized controlled trial. The aims were to test the feasibility of recruitment, randomization and follow-up, and to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of the motivational interview.

Methods: Patients in an outpatient personality disorder service were randomized to receive the Personal Concerns Inventory plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual only. The main randomized controlled trial feasibility criteria were recruitment of 54% of referrals, and 80% of clients and therapists finding the intervention acceptable. Information was collected on treatment attendance, the clarity of therapy goals and treatment engagement.

Results: The recruitment rate was 29% (76 of 258). Of 12 interviewed at follow-up, eight (67%) were positive about the Personal Concerns Inventory. Pre-intervention interviews were conducted with 61% (23 out of 38) of the Personal Concerns Inventory group and 74% (28 out of 38) of the treatment as usual group. Participants' therapy goals were blind-rated for clarity on a scale of 0 to 10. The mean score for the Personal Concerns Inventory group was 6.64 (SD = 2.28) and for the treatment as usual group 2.94 (SD = 1.71). Over 12 weeks, the median percentage session attendance was 83.33% for the Personal Concerns Inventory group (N = 17) and 66.67% for the treatment as usual group (N = 24). Of 59 eligible participants at follow-up, the Treatment Engagement Rating scale was completed for 40 (68%). The mean Treatment Engagement Rating scale score for the Personal Concerns Inventory group was 6.64 (SD = 2.28) and for the treatment as usual group 2.94 (SD = 1.71). Of the 76 participants, 63 (83%) completed the Client Service Receipt Inventory at baseline and 34 of 59 (58%) at follow-up.

Conclusion: Shortfalls in recruitment and follow-up data collection were explained by major changes to the service. However, evidence of a substantial positive impact of the Personal Concerns Inventory on treatment attendance, clarity of therapy goals and treatment engagement, make a full-scale evaluation worth pursuing. Further preparatory work is required for a multisite trial.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov.UK Identifier - NCT01132976.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT flow diagram.

References

    1. Clough BA, Casey LM. Technological adjuncts to increase adherence to therapy: a review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31:697–710. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.03.006.
    1. Hansen NB, Lambert MJ, Forman EM. The psychotherapy dose–response effect and its implications for treatment delivery services. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice. 2002;9:329–343. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.9.3.329.
    1. McMurran M, Huband N, Overton E. Non-completion of personality disorder treatments: a systematic review of correlates, consequences, and interventions. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30:277–287. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.12.002.
    1. Karterud S, Pederson G, Bjordal E, Brabrand J, Friis S, Haaseth Ø, Haavaldsen G, Irion T, Leirvåg H, Tørum E, Urnes Ø. Day treatment of people with personality disorders: experiences from a Norwegian treatment research network. J Pers Disord. 2003;17:243–262. doi: 10.1521/pedi.17.3.243.22151.
    1. Webb D, McMurran M. A comparison of women who continue and discontinue treatment for borderline personality disorder. Pers Mental Health. 2009;3:142–149. doi: 10.1002/pmh.69.
    1. Bornovalova MA, Daughters SB. How does dialectical behaviour therapy facilitate treatment retention among individuals with comorbid borderline personality disorders and substance use disorders. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27:923–943. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.01.013.
    1. Ogrodnikzuk J, Joyce AS, Piper W. Strategies for reducing patient-initiated premature termination of psychotherapy. Harvard Rev Psychiat. 2005;13:57–70. doi: 10.1080/10673220590956429.
    1. Emmons RA. Striving for the sacred: personal goals, life meaning, and religion. J Soc Issues. 2005;61:731–745. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00429.x.
    1. Michalak J, Grosse Holtforth M. Where do we go from here? The goal perspective in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice. 2006;13:346–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00048.x.
    1. Klinger E. Conceptual framework and issues for a goals-oriented treatment perspective: A commentary on ‘Where do we go from here? The goal perspective in psychotherapy’. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice. 2006;13:371–375. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00050.x.
    1. Klinger E, Cox WM. In: Handbook of Motivational Counseling. Cox WM, Klinger E, editor. Wiley, Chichester, UK; 2011. Motivation and goal theory of current concerns; pp. 3–47.
    1. Cox WM, Klinger E. In: Handbook of Motivational Counseling. Cox WM, Klinger E, editor. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2011. Measuring motivation: The Motivational Structure Questionnaire and Personal Concerns Inventory and their variants; pp. 161–204.
    1. Cox WM, Klinger E. Motivational structure: relationships with substance use and processes of change. Addict Behav. 2002;27:925–940. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00290-3.
    1. Cox WM, Blount JP, Bair J, Hosier SG. Motivational predictors of readiness to change chronic substance abuse. Addict Res. 2000;8:121–128. doi: 10.3109/16066350009004415.
    1. Theodosi E, McMurran M. Motivating convicted sex offenders into treatment: a pilot study. Brit J Forensic Pract. 2006;8:28–35. doi: 10.1108/14636646200600017.
    1. McMurran M, Cox WM, Coupe S, Whitham D, Hedges L. The addition of a goal-based motivational interview to standardised treatment as usual to reduce dropouts in a service for patients with personality disorder: a feasibility study. Trials. 2010;11:98. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-98.
    1. Hyler SE. Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4. New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute; 1994.
    1. Drieschner KH, Boomsma A. The Treatment Engagement Rating scale (TER) for forensic outpatient treatment: description, psychometric properties, and norms. Psychol Crime Law. 2008;14:299–315. doi: 10.1080/10683160701858206.
    1. Beecham J, Knapp M. In: Measuring Mental Health Needs. 2. Thornicroft G, editor. London: Gaskell; 2001. Costing psychiatric interventions.
    1. Huband N, McMurran M, Evans C, Duggan C. Social problem solving plus psychoeducation for adults with personality disorder: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Brit J Psychiat. 2007;190:307–313. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.023341.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Publication of 2010–11 reference costs.
    1. Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, Grant AM, Russell IT, Kiauka S, Colthart IR, Ross S, Shepherd SM, Russell D. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Asses. 1999;3(20):1–143. .
    1. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG, Smith DM, Huey J, Giobbie-Hurder A, Feusner JR. Multisite randomized controlled trials in health services research: scientific and operational issues. Med Care. 2001;39:627–634. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200106000-00010.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren