To evaluate whether a brief training using a Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT) model improves attitudes of trainee psychiatrists working with patients with personality disorder. Trainee psychiatrists (n = 49) completed the Attitudes to Personality Disorder Questionnaire before and after a training consisting of two 3 h lectures on (a) theory of personality disorder and (b) practical skills using an MBT role-play.

There was a significant improvement on composite scores of attitude, with small to moderate effect size (Wilcoxon signed-rank test Z = 3.961, P < 0.001, r = 0.40).

Brief MBT-informed teaching oriented to the clinical situation appears to have a positive effect on attitudes towards people with personality disorder.

Two types of mentalization-based treatment (MBT), day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP), have been shown to be effective in treating patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study evaluated trajectories of change in a multi-site trial of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment.

All 114 patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44) from the original multicentre trial were assessed at 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. The primary outcome was symptom severity measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality and interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling and the intention-to-treat principle.

Patients in both MBT-DH and MBT-IOP maintained the substantial improvements made during the intensive treatment phase and showed further gains during follow-up. Across both conditions, 83% of patients improved in terms of symptom severity, and 97% improved on borderline symptomatology. No significant differences were found between MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. However, trajectories of change were different. Whereas patients in MBT-DH showed greater improvement during the intensive treatment phase, patients in MBT-IOP showed greater continuing improvement during follow-up.

Patients in both conditions showed similar large improvements over the course of 36 months, despite large differences in treatment intensity. MBT-DH and MBT-IOP were associated with different trajectories of change. Cost-effectiveness considerations and predictors of differential treatment outcome may further inform optimal treatment selection.

Impaired mentalizing ability – an impaired ability to understand one's own and other people's behavior in terms of mental states – is associated with social dysfunction in non-affective psychotic disorder (NAPD). We tested whether adding mentalization-based treatment for psychotic disorder (MBTp) to treatment as usual (TAU) results in greater improvement in social functioning.

Multicenter, rater-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Eighty-four patients with NAPD were assigned to TAU or MBTp plus TAU. Patients in the MBTp group received 18 months of MBTp, consisting of weekly group sessions and one individual session per 2 weeks. Social functioning was measured using the Social Functioning Scale. We conducted ANCOVAs to examine the difference between treatment conditions directly after treatment and at 6-month follow-up and performed moderation and mediation analyses.

Intention-to-treat analyses showed no significant differences between groups post-treatment (p = 0.31) but revealed the MBTp group to be superior to TAU at follow-up (p = 0.03). Patients in the MBTp group also seemed to perform better on measures of mentalizing ability, although evidence of a mediation effect was limited (p = 0.06). Lastly, MBTp treatment was less effective in chronic patients than in recent-onset patients (p = 0.049) and overall symptoms at baseline were mild, which may have reduced the overall effectiveness of the intervention.

The results suggest that MBTp plus TAU may lead to more robust improvements in social functioning compared to TAU, especially for patients with a recent onset of psychosis.

This article aimed to address the feasibility of mentalization-based treatment (MBT) for patients with personality disorder in a non-specialist setting. The development and implementation of an MBT Programme is described.

A multidisciplinary Consult Group met to plan the implementation of the programme. Participants attended a psychoeducation group (MBT Introductory Group), then weekly individual and group therapy. Fourteen participants started the full programme with eight completing at least 9 months, complete data are available for five participants who completed 27 months (first cohort) and 21 months (second cohort). Data include quantitative measures and qualitative questionnaires/interviews. All had a diagnosis of personality dysfunction with co-morbid disorder including anxiety/depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and eating disorder.

Data on five participants revealed reductions in global level of distress, improvements in psychological well-being, less interpersonal difficulties and better work and social functioning. Qualitative data from feedback questionnaires (n = 18) and in-depth interview (n = 2) are discussed under the themes of mentalizing, treatment feedback/outcomes and group factors. Therapist reflections on the process identify the challenges involved in implementing a specialist psychotherapy programme within a general service and learning points from this are discussed.

MBT is an acceptable treatment for patients with personality dysfunction. Prior to the implementation of a programme, factors at the therapist, team and organizational level, as well as the wider context, need to be examined. This is to ensure that conditions are in place for proper adherence to the model to achieve the positive outcomes demonstrated in the RCT studies.

Day hospital mentalization-based treatment (MBT-DH) is a promising treatment for borderline personality disorder (BPD) but its evidence base is still limited. This multi-site randomized trial compared the efficacy of MBT-DH delivered by a newly set-up service v. specialist treatment as usual (S-TAU) tailored to the individual needs of patients, and offered by a well-established treatment service.

Two mental healthcare institutes in The Netherlands participated in the study. Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD and had a score of ⩾20 on the borderline personality disorder severity index (BPDSI) were randomly allocated to MBT-DH (N = 54) or S-TAU (N = 41). The primary outcome variable was the total score on the BPDSI. Secondary outcome variables included symptom severity, quality of life, and interpersonal functioning. Data were collected at baseline and every 6 months until 18-month follow-up, and were analyzed using multilevel analyses based on intention-to-treat principles.

Both treatments were associated with significant improvements in all outcome variables. MBT-DH was not superior to S-TAU on any outcome variable. MBT-DH was associated with higher acceptability in BPD patients compared v. S-TAU, reflected in significantly higher early drop-out rates in S-TAU (34%) v. MBT-DH (9%).

MBT-DH delivered by a newly set-up service is as effective as specialist TAU in The Netherlands in the treatment of BPD at 18-month follow-up. Further research is needed to investigate treatment outcomes in the longer term and the cost-effectiveness of these treatments.