↓ Skip to main content

Day hospital Mentalization-based treatment versus intensive outpatient Mentalization-based treatment for patients with severe borderline personality disorder: protocol of a multicentre randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Day hospital Mentalization-based treatment versus intensive outpatient Mentalization-based treatment for patients with severe borderline personality disorder: protocol of a multicentre randomized clinical trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12888-014-0301-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth MP Laurenssen, Maaike L Smits, Dawn L Bales, Dine J Feenstra, Hester V Eeren, Marc J Noom, Maartje A Köster, Zwaan Lucas, Reinier Timman, Jack JM Dekker, Patrick Luyten, Jan JV Busschbach, Roel Verheul

Abstract

BackgroundBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with a high socioeconomic burden. Although a number of evidence-based treatments for BPD are currently available, they are not widely disseminated; furthermore, there is a need for more research concerning their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Such knowledge promises to lead to more efficient use of resources, which will facilitate the effective dissemination of these costly treatments. This study focuses on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT), a manualized treatment for patients with BPD. Studies to date have either investigated MBT in a day hospitalization setting (MBT-DH) or MBT offered in an intensive outpatient setting (MBT-IOP). No trial has compared the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these MBT programmes. As both interventions differ considerably in terms of intensity of treatment, and thus potentially in terms of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, there is a need for comparative trials. This study therefore sets out to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of MBT-DH versus MBT-IOP in patients with BPD. A secondary aim is to investigate the association between baseline measures and outcome, which might improve treatment selection and thus optimize efficacy and cost-effectiveness.Methods/DesignA multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing MBT-DH versus MBT-IOP in severe BPD patients. Patients are screened for BPD using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders, and are assessed before randomization, at the start of treatment and 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. Patients who refuse to participate will be offered care as usual in the same treatment centre. The primary outcome measure is symptom severity as measured by the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures include parasuicidal behaviour, depression, substance use, social, interpersonal, and personality functioning, attachment, mentalizing capacities, and quality of life. All analyses will be conducted based on the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness will be calculated based on costs per quality-adjusted life-year.DiscussionThis multisite randomized trial will provide data to refine criteria for treatment selection for severe BPD patients and promises to optimize (cost-)effectiveness of the treatment of BPD patients.Trial registrationNTR2292. Registered 16 April 2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Unknown 179 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Student > Master 24 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Researcher 12 7%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 58 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 80 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 58 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2020.
All research outputs
#13,341,515
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,775
of 4,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,913
of 362,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#46
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.