Family Connections versus optimised treatment-as-usual for family members of individuals with borderline personality disorder: non-randomised controlled study

Daniel Flynn, Mary Kells, Mary Joyce, Paul Corcoran, Sarah Herley, Catalina Suarez, Padraig Cotter, Justina Hurley, Mareike Weihrauch, John Groeger, Daniel Flynn, Mary Kells, Mary Joyce, Paul Corcoran, Sarah Herley, Catalina Suarez, Padraig Cotter, Justina Hurley, Mareike Weihrauch, John Groeger

Abstract

Background: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is challenging for family members who are often required to fulfil multiple roles such as those of advocate, caregiver, coach and guardian. To date, two uncontrolled studies by the treatment developers suggest that Family Connections (FC) is an effective programme to support, educate and teach skills to family members of individuals with BPD. However, such studies have been limited by lack of comparison to other treatment approaches. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of FC with an optimised treatment-as-usual (OTAU) programme for family members of individuals with BPD. A secondary aim was to introduce a long term follow-up to investigate if positive gains from the intervention would be maintained following programme completion.

Methods: This study was a non-randomised controlled study, with assessment of outcomes at baseline (pre-intervention) and end of programme (post-intervention) for both FC and OTAU groups, and at follow-up (3 months post-intervention; 12 or 19 months post-intervention) for the FC group. Eighty family members participated in the FC (n = 51) and the OTAU (n = 29) programmes. Outcome measures included burden, grief, depression and mastery. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess baseline differences in the outcome measures by gender, age group and type of relationship to the individual with BPD. Linear mixed-effects models were also used to estimate the treatment effect (FC versus OTAU) utilising all available data from baseline and end of programme.

Results: The FC group showed changes indicating significant improvement with respect to all four outcome measures (p < 0.001). The OTAU group showed changes in the same direction as the intervention group but none of the changes were statistically significant. The intervention effect was statistically significant for total burden (including both subscales; p = .02 for subjective burden and p = .048 for objective burden) and grief (p = 0.013). Improvements were maintained at follow-up for FC participants.

Conclusions: The findings of the current study indicate that FC results in statistically significant improvements on key measures while OTAU does not yield comparable changes. Lack of significant change on all measures for OTAU suggests that a three session psycho-education programme is of limited benefit. Further research is warranted on programme components and long-term supports for family members.

Keywords: Borderline personality disorder; Burden; Effectiveness; Family Connections; Family members; Grief; Long-term follow-up; Significant others.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures were reviewed and approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals, Cork, Ireland.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of participants through the trial
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Adjusted means for participants in the FC and OTAU groups at each time-point for: a Objective burden; b Subjective burden, c Total burden, d Grief, e Personal Mastery, f Depression

References

    1. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM 4) 4. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2000.
    1. Kuo JR, Korslund KE, Linehan M. Borderline personality disorder. In: Carr A, McNulty M, editors. The handbook of adult clinical psychology: an evidence-based practice approach. London: Routledge; 2006. pp. 897–940.
    1. Rizvi SL, Steffel LM, Carson-Wong A. An overview of dialectical behaviour therapy for professional psychologists. Prof Psychology. Res Pract. 2013;44(2):73–80.
    1. Black DW, Blum N, Pfohl B, Hale N. Suicidal behaviour in borderline personality disorder: prevalence, risk factors, prediction, and prevention. J Personal Disord. 2004;18(3):226–239. doi: 10.1521/pedi.18.3.226.35445.
    1. Hoffman PD, Fruzzetti AE, Buteau E, Neiditch ER, Penney D, Bruce ML, Hellman F, Struening E. Family connections: a programme for relatives of persons with borderline personality disorder. Fam Process. 2005;44(2):217–225. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.00055.x.
    1. Scheirs J, Bok S. Psychological distress in caretakers or relatives of patients with borderline personality disorder. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2007;53(3):195–203. doi: 10.1177/0020764006074554.
    1. Ekdahl S, Idvall E, Samuelsson M, Perseius K-I. A life tiptoeing: being a significant other to persons with borderline personality disorder. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2011;25(6):69–76.
    1. Bailey RC, Grenyer BFS. Supporting a person with personality disorder: a study of carer burden and well-being. J Personal Disord. 2014;28(6):796–809. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2014_28_136.
    1. Lawn S, McMahon J. Experiences of family carers of people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2015;22(4):234–243. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12193.
    1. Dunne E, Rogers B. ‘It’s us that have to deal with it seven days a week’: carers and borderline personality disorder. Community Ment Health J. 2013;49(6):643–648. doi: 10.1007/s10597-012-9556-4.
    1. Bauer R, Döring A, Schmidt T, Spießl H. ‘mad or bad?’: burden on caregivers of patients with personality disorders. J Personal Disord. 2012;26(6):956–971. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.956.
    1. Stoffers JM, Vollm BA, Rucker G, Timmer A, Huband N, Lieb K. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD005652.
    1. Fruzzetti AE, Hoffman PD. Family connections workbook and training manual. Rye, NY: National education alliance for borderline personality disorder; 2004.
    1. Hoffman PD, Fruzzetti AE, Buteau E. Understanding and engaging families: an education, skills and support programme for relatives impacted by borderline personality disorder. J Ment Health. 2007;16(1):69–82. doi: 10.1080/09638230601182052.
    1. Rajalin M, Wickholm-Pethrus L, Hursti T, Jokinen J. Dialectical behaviour therapy-based skills training for family members of suicide attempters. Arch Suicide Res. 2009;13(3):257–263. doi: 10.1080/13811110903044401.
    1. Reinhard SC, Gubman GD, Horwitz AV, Minsky S. Burden assessment scale for families of the seriously mentally ill. Eval Program Plann. 1994;17(3):261–269. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(94)90004-3.
    1. Struening E, Stueve A, Vine P, Kreisman D, Link BG, Herman D. Factors associated with grief and depressive symptoms in caregivers of people with mental illness. Res Community Ment Health. 1995;8:91–124.
    1. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;(1, 3):385–401.
    1. Pearlin LI, Menaghan EG, Lieberman MA, Mullan JT. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav. 1981;22(4):337–356. doi: 10.2307/2136676.
    1. Fruzzetti AE, Santisteban DA, Hoffman PD. Dialectical behaviour therapy with families. In: Dimeff LA, Koerner K, editors. Dialectical behaviour therapy in clinical practice: applications across disorders and settings. New York: Guilford Press; 2007. pp. 222–245.
    1. Coppens E, van Audenhove C, Scheerder G, Arensman E, Coffey C, Costa S, Koburger N, Gottlebe K, Gusmao R, O’Connor R, Postuvan V, Sarchiapone M, Sisask M, Szekely A, van der Feltz-Cornelius C, Hegerl U. Public attitudes toward depression and help-seeking in four European countries baseline survey prior to the OSPI-Europe intervention. J Affect Disord. 2013;150(2):320–329. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.04.013.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する