Personality disorders have no excessively negative impact on therapist-rated therapy process in the cognitive and behavioural treatment of Axis I anxiety disorders

An experimental Investigation of the Impact of Personality Disorder Diagnosis on Clinicians: Can We See Past the Borderline?

Background: There is concern that diagnostic labels for psychiatric disorders may invoke damaging stigma, stereotypes and misunderstanding. Aims: This study investigated clinicians’ reactions to diagnostic labelling by examining their positive and negative reactions to the label borderline personality disorder (BPD). Method: Mental health professionals (n = 265) viewed a videotape of a patient suffering from panic disorder and agoraphobia undergoing assessment. Prior to viewing the videotape, participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions and were given the following information about the patient: (a) general background information; (b) additional descriptive information about behaviour corresponding to BPD; and (c) additional descriptive information about behaviour corresponding to BPD, but explicitly adding BPD as a possible comorbid diagnostic label. All participants were then asked to note things they had seen in the videotape that made them feel optimistic or pessimistic about treatment outcome. Results: Participants in the group that were explicitly informed that the patient had a BPD diagnostic label reported significantly fewer reasons to be optimistic than the other two groups. Conclusions: Diagnostic labels may negatively impact on clinicians’ judgments and perceptions of individuals and therefore clinicians should think carefully about whether, and how, they use diagnoses and efforts should be made to destigmatize diagnostic terms.

The effect of personality disorders on treatment outcomes in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorders

The effect of comorbid personality disorders (PD) on treatment outcomes in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is unclear. The authors systematically review results from investigations of therapy outcomes in adult patients with OCD and a comorbid PD. PsycINFO and MEDLINE were searched for original articles. Twenty-three studies assessing PDs through interviews were selected. Cluster A PDs, particularly schizotypal PD, narcissistic PD, and the presence of two or more comorbid PDs, were associated with poorer treatment outcomes in patients with OCD. With regard to other PDs and clusters, the results are inconsistent or the sample sizes are too small to reach a conclusion. OCD patients with different comorbid PDs differ in their therapeutic response to treatment. To optimize the treatment of OCD, the predictive value of PDs on the treatment outcome should be further investigated, and treatment of Axis I and II comorbidity requires more attention.

Meta-analyses of agreement between diagnoses made from clinical evaluations and standardized diagnostic interviews

Standardized diagnostic interviews (SDIs) have become de facto gold standards for clinical research. However, because clinical practitioners seldom use SDIs, it is essential to determine how well SDIs agree with clinical diagnoses. In meta-analyses of 38 articles published from 1995 to 2006 (N = 15,967 probands), mean kappas (z-transformed) between diagnoses from clinical evaluations versus SDIs were 0.27 for a broad category of all disorders, 0.29 for externalizing disorders, and 0.28 for internalizing disorders. Kappas for specific disorders ranged from 0.19 for generalized anxiety disorder to 0.86 for anorexia nervosa (median = 0.48). For diagnostic clusters (e.g. psychotic disorders), kappas ranged from 0.14 for affective disorders (including bipolar) to 0.70 for eating disorders (median = 0.43). Kappas were significantly higher for outpatients than inpatients and for children than adults. However, these effects were not significant in meta-regressions.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic agreement between SDIs and clinical evaluations varied widely by disorder and was low to moderate for most disorders. Thus, findings from SDIs may not fully apply to diagnoses based on clinical evaluations of the sort used in the published studies. Rather than implying that SDIs or clinical evaluations are inferior, characteristics of both may limit agreement and generalizability from SDI findings to clinical practice.