@2*B2<$C0&!QB11)%($Y0E'c1%066$Y0!/647#)(#0%214!V0%6B6! a)*92*B2<$C0&!8)99B*$(4EO0<$Y0%0&!/647#)&4*29$7!"#0%214!:)%! 12($0*(6!Z$(#!10%6)*2<$(4!&$6)%&0%6?!F%$&D$*D!0::$7274!2*&! 0::07($Y0*066! V$**2%6_!F>_!F2%30%_!i>/>_!a)%o*_!I>_!S2<<)1_!5>_!K0$*%43_!5>@>![+,,.^>!!@2*B2<$C0&!QB11)%($Y0E'c1%066$Y0! /647#)(#0%214!V0%6B6!a)*92*B2<$C0&!8)99B*$(4EO0<$Y0%0&!/647#)&4*29$7!"#0%214!:)%!/2($0*(6!K$(#! /0%6)*2<$(4!O$6)%&0%6?!F%$&D$*D!'::$7274!2*&!'::07($Y0*066>! /$%#)?@+&N">#+@B&"!&'(A?-)@,#A _! IgG _!-\PPh-\],>! V$**2%6_!F>_!F2%30%_!i>/>_!a)%o*_!I>_!"#)%9J#<0*_!F>_!S2<<)1_!5>_!A$*&D%0*_!=>_!K0$*%43_!5>@>![+,,d^>!K#)!72*! 30*0:$(!:%)9!($90E<$9$(0&!&4*29$7!1647#)(#0%214n!=!6(B&4!):!1647#$2(%$7!)B(12($0*(6!Z$(#!10%6)*2<$(4! &$6)%&0%6>! 8B)+)?@B&'(A?-"B"LA&@+*&'(A?-",-%#@:A _! Il _!-\bh+-,>! V$**2%6_!F>_!"#)%9J#<0*_!F>_!S2<<)1_!5>_!a)%o*_!I>_!G!F2%30%_!i>!/>![+,,\^>!O)!10%6)*2<$(4!1%)3<096!$91%)Y0! &B%$*D!1647#)&4*29$7!6B11)%($Y0E0c1%066$Y0!1647#)(#0%214n!Q07)*&2%4!)B(7)90!%06B<(6!:%)9!2!%2*&)9$C0&! 7)*(%)<<0&!(%$2! '(A?-",-%#@:A&1-%"#AO&3%(%@#?-O&'#@?,)?%O& 1#@)+)+LO&lg [P^_!P.+EPd.>!! W(*&,!>-001(3! Time-limited manualized dynamic psychotherapy was compared with community-delivered psychodynamic therapy for outpatients with personality disorders. {Vinnars, 2005 #140} In a stratified randomized clinical trial, 156 patients with any personality disorder diagnosis were randomly assigned either to 40 sessions of supportive- expressive psychotherapy (N=80) or to community-delivered psychodynamic therapy (N=76). Assessments were made at intake and 1 and 2 years after intake. Patients were recruited consecutively from two community mental health centers (CMHCs), assessed with the Structural Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders, and included if they had a diagnosis of any DSM-IV personality disorder. The outcome measures included the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis, personality disorder severity index, level of psychiatric symptoms (SCL-90), Global Assessment of Functioning Scale score, and number of therapy sessions. General mixed-model analysis of variance was used to assess group and time effects. In both treatment conditions, the global level of functioning improved while there were decreases in the prevalence of patients fulfilling criteria for a personality disorder diagnosis, personality disorder severity, and psychiatric symptoms. There was no difference in effect between treatments. During the follow-up period, patients who received supportive-expressive psychotherapy made significantly fewer visits to the CMHCs than the patients who received community-delivered psychodynamic therapy. Manualized supportive-expressive psychotherapy was as effective as nonmanualized community- delivered psychodynamic therapy conducted by experienced dynamic clinicians. @)15-1.*$#! The main limitation of the study is that the lack of a placebo or inactive control does not allow to conclude that treatment is responsible for the outcomes obtained. However, this is a limitation of all comparative studies that for ethical reasons are forced to eliminate placebo groups. Nevertheless,
4'20&&;443&&32D.2E&&F&&19.3;&&2;.1.40&&GHIJ&&F& CVN
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator