Dataset Information

Design of an RCT on cost-effectiveness of group schema therapy versus individual schema therapy for patients with Cluster-C personality disorder: the QUEST-CLC study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Given the high prevalence of Cluster-C Personality Disorders (PDs) in clinical populations, disease burden, high societal costs and poor prognosis of comorbid disorders, a major gain in health care can be achieved if Cluster-C PDs are adequately treated. The only controlled cost-effectiveness study published so far found Individual Schema Therapy (IST) to be superior to Treatment as Usual (TAU). Group ST (GST) might improve cost-effectiveness as larger numbers can be treated in (>50%) less time compared to IST. However, to date there is no RCT supporting its (cost-) effectiveness. The overall aim of this study is to assess the evidence for GST for Cluster-C PDs and to improve treatment allocation for individual patients. Three main questions are addressed: 1) Is GST for Cluster-C PDs (cost-)effective compared to TAU? 2) Is GST for Cluster-C PDs (cost-) effective compared to IST? 3) Which patient-characteristics predict better response to GST, IST, or TAU?

Methods

In a multicenter RCT, the treatment conditions GST, IST, and TAU are compared in 378 Cluster-C PD patients within 10 sites. GST and IST follow treatment protocols and are completed within 1 year. TAU is the optimal alternative treatment available at the site according to regular procedures. Severity of the Cluster-C PD is the primary outcome, assessed with clinical interviews by independent raters blind for treatment. Functioning and wellbeing are important secondary outcomes. Assessments take place at week 0 (baseline), 17 (mid-GST), 34 (post-GST), 51 (post-booster sessions of GST), and 2 years (FU). Patient characteristics predicting better response to a specific treatment are studied, e.g., childhood trauma, autistic features, and introversion. A tool supporting patients and clinicians in matching treatment to patient will be developed. An economic evaluation investigates the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility from a societal perspective. A process evaluation by qualitative methods explores experiences of participants, loved ones and therapists regarding recovery, quality of life, and improving treatment.

Discussion

This study will determine the (cost-)effectiveness of treatments for Cluster-C PDs regarding treatment type as well as optimal matching of patient to treatment and deliver insight into which aspects help Cluster-C-PD patients recover and create a fulfilling life.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register: NL9209 . Registered on 28-01-2021.

SUBMITTER: Groot IZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9548126 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Design of an RCT on cost-effectiveness of group schema therapy versus individual schema therapy for patients with Cluster-C personality disorder: the QUEST-CLC study protocol.

Groot Iuno Z IZ Venhuizen Anne-Sophie S M ASM Bachrach Nathan N Walhout Simone S de Moor Bregje B Nikkels Kasper K Dalmeijer Susanne S Maarschalkerweerd Myrte M van Aalderen Joël R JR de Lange Hinde H Wichers Renske R Hollander Agatha Ph AP Evers Silvia M A A SMAA Grasman Raoul P P P RPPP Arntz Arnoud A

BMC psychiatry 20221008 1

<h4>Background</h4>Given the high prevalence of Cluster-C Personality Disorders (PDs) in clinical populations, disease burden, high societal costs and poor prognosis of comorbid disorders, a major gain in health care can be achieved if Cluster-C PDs are adequately treated. The only controlled cost-effectiveness study published so far found Individual Schema Therapy (IST) to be superior to Treatment as Usual (TAU). Group ST (GST) might improve cost-effectiveness as larger numbers can be treated i ...[more]

PMID: 36209067

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSchema therapy (ST), delivered either in an individual or group format, has been compared with other active treatments for borderline personality disorder (BPD). To our knowledge, the 2 formats have not been compared with treatment as usual (TAU) or with each other. Such comparisons help determine best treatment practices.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether ST is more effectively delivered in a predominantly group or combined individual and group format and whether ST is more effective than optimal TAU for BPD.Design, setting, and participantsIn this multicenter, 3-arm randomized clinical trial conducted at 15 sites in 5 countries (Australia, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, and the UK), outpatients aged 18 to 65 years who had BPD were recruited between June 29, 2010, and May 18, 2016, to receive either predominantly group ST (PGST), combined individual and group ST (IGST), or optimal TAU. Data were analyzed from June 4, 2019, to December 29, 2021.InterventionsAt each site, cohorts of 16 to 18 participants were randomized 1:1 to PGST vs TAU or IGST vs TAU. Both ST formats were delivered over 2 years, with 2 sessions per week in year 1 and the frequency gradually decreasing during year 2. Assessments were collected by blinded assessors.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the change in BPD severity over time, assessed with the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index (BPDSI) total score. Treatment retention was analyzed as a secondary outcome using generalized linear mixed model survival analysis.ResultsOf 495 participants (mean [SD] age, 33.6 [9.4] years; 426 [86.2%] female), 246 (49.7%) received TAU, 125 (25.2%) received PGST, and 124 (25.0%) received IGST (1 of whom later withdrew consent). PGST and IGST combined were superior to TAU with regard to reduced BPD severity (Cohen d, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.29-1.18; P < .001). For this outcome, IGST was superior to TAU (Cohen d, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.57-1.71; P < .001) and PGST (Cohen d, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.09-1.59; P = .03), whereas PGST did not differ significantly from TAU (Cohen d, 0.30; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.89; P = .32). Treatment retention was greater in the IGST arm than in the PGST (1 year: 0.82 vs 0.72; 2 years: 0.74 vs. 0.62) and TAU (1 year: 0.82 vs 0.73; 2 years: 0.74 vs 0.64) arms, and there was no significant difference between the TAU and PGST arms (1 year: 0.73 vs 0.72; 2 years: 0.64 vs 0.62).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, IGST was more effective and had greater treatment retention compared with TAU and PGST. These findings suggest that IGST is the preferred ST format, with high retention and continuation of improvement in BPD severity after the completion of treatment.Trial registrationtrialregister.nl Identifier: NTR2392.

Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder represents (MDD) a major cause of disability and disease burden. Beside antidepressant medication, psychotherapy is a key approach of treatment. Schema therapy has been shown to be effective in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, especially personality disorders, in a variety of settings and patient groups. Nevertheless, there is no evidence on its effectiveness for MDD in an inpatient nor day clinic setting and little is known about the factors that drive treatment response in such a target group.MethodsIn the current protocol, we outline OPTIMA (OPtimized Treatment Identification at the MAx Planck Institute): a single-center randomized controlled trial of schema therapy as a treatment approach for MDD in an inpatient and day clinic setting. Over the course of 7 weeks, we compare schema therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy and individual supportive therapy, conducted in individual and group sessions and with no restrictions regarding concurrent antidepressant medication, thus approximating real-life treatment conditions. N = 300 depressed patients are included. All study therapists undergo a specific training and supervision and therapy adherence is assessed. Primary outcome is depressive symptom severity as self-assessment (Beck Depression Inventory-II) and secondary outcomes are clinical ratings of MDD (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale), recovery rates after 7 weeks according to the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview, general psychopathology (Brief Symptom Inventory), global functioning (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule), and clinical parameters such as dropout rates. Further parameters on a behavioral, cognitive, psychophysiological, and biological level are measured before, during and after treatment and in 2 follow-up assessments after 6 and 24 months after end of treatment.DiscussionTo our knowledge, the OPTIMA-Trial is the first to investigate the effectiveness of schema therapy as a treatment approach of MDD, to investigate mechanisms of change, and explore predictors of treatment response in an inpatient and day clinic setting by using such a wide range of parameters. Insights from OPTIMA will allow more integrative approaches of psychotherapy of MDD. Especially, the identification of intervention-specific markers of treatment response can improve evidence-based clinical decision for individualizing treatment.Trial registrationIdentifier on clinicaltrials.gov : NCT03287362 ; September, 12, 2017.

Project description:Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious and relatively common mental disorder causing a high burden of suffering. Whereas evidence-based treatments are available, dropout and non-response rates remain high. PTSD and Cluster C personality disorders (avoidant, dependent or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder; CPD) are highly comorbid and there is evidence for suboptimal treatment effects in this subgroup of patients. An integrated PTSD and CPD treatment may be needed to increase treatment efficacy. However, no studies directly comparing the efficacy of regular PTSD treatment and treatment tailored to PTSD and comorbid CPD are available. Whether integrated treatment is more effective than treatment focused on PTSD alone is important, since (1) no evidence-based guideline for PTSD and comorbid CPD treatment exists, and (2) treatment approaches to CPD are costly and time consuming. Present study design describes a randomized controlled trial (RCT) directly comparing trauma focused treatment with integrated trauma focused and personality focused treatment. Methods: An RCT with two parallel groups design will be used to compare the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of "standalone" imagery rescripting (n = 63) with integrated imagery rescripting and schema therapy (n = 63). This trial is part of a larger research project on PTSD and personality disorders. Predictors, mediators and outcome variables are measured at regular intervals over the course of 18 months. The main outcome is PTSD severity at 12 months. Additionally, machine-learning techniques will be used to predict treatment outcome using biopsychosocial variables. Discussion: This study protocol outlines the first RCT aimed at directly comparing the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of imagery rescripting and integrated imagery rescripting and schema therapy for treatment seeking adult patients with PTSD and comorbid cluster C personality pathology. Additionally, biopsychosocial variables will be used to predict treatment outcome. As such, the trial adds to the development of an empirically informed and individualized treatment indication process. Clinical Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03833531.

Project description:BackgroundEating disorders (EDs), such as (atypical) Anorexia (AN) and Bulimia Nervosa (BN), are difficult to treat, causing socioeconomic impediments. Although enhanced cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT-E) is widely considered clinically effective, it may not be the most beneficial treatment for (atypical) AN and BN patients who do not show a rapid response after the first 4 weeks (8 sessions) of a CBT-E treatment. Alternatively, group schema therapy (GST) may be a valuable treatment for this ED population. Even though GST for EDs has yielded promising preliminary findings, the current body of evidence requires expansion. On top of that, data on cost-effectiveness is lacking. In light of these gaps, we aim to describe a protocol to examine whether GST is more (1) clinically effective and (2) cost-effective than CBT-E for (atypical) AN and BN patients, who do not show a rapid response after the first 4 weeks of treatment. Additionally, we will conduct (3) process evaluations for both treatments.MethodsUsing a multicenter RCT design, 232 Dutch (atypical) AN and BN patients with a CBT-E referral will be recruited from five treatment centers. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness will be measured before treatment, directly after treatment, at 6 and at 12 months follow-up. In order to rate process evaluation, patient experiences and the degree to which treatments are implemented according to protocol will be measured. In order to assess the quality of life and the achievement of personalized goals, interviews will be conducted at the end of treatment. Data will be analyzed, using a regression-based approach to mixed modelling, multivariate sensitivity analyses and coding trees for qualitative data. We hypothesize GST to be superior to CBT-E in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for patients who do not show a rapid response to the first 4 weeks of a CBT-E treatment.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first study protocol describing a multicenter RCT to explore the three aforementioned objectives. Related risks in performing the study protocol have been outlined. The expected findings may serve as a guide for healthcare stakeholders to optimize ED care trajectories.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov (NCT05812950).

Dataset Information

Design of an RCT on cost-effectiveness of group schema therapy versus individual schema therapy for patients with Cluster-C personality disorder: the QUEST-CLC study protocol.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Design of an RCT on cost-effectiveness of group schema therapy versus individual schema therapy for patients with Cluster-C personality disorder: the QUEST-CLC study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets