Reducing patient stigma amongst staff working with personality disorder

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based self-management versus Psycho education Training for staff caring for clients with a Personality Disorder: Randomised Controlled Trial

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN36753818

Enrollment

200

Registered

2013-04-15

Start date

2009-03-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2020-06-15

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Patient stigma amongst staff working with personality disorder. Mental and Behavioural Disorders Personality disorder

Interventions

Psycho educational training (PETr) intervention. We focused our training efforts on providing an introductory understanding of the diagnosis and the treatment of PDs. We taught using informal presenta

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: All mental health staff employed by NHS trusts and staff from other agencies who come into contact with PD patients were eligible to volunteer to participate.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria included: 1. Involvement in development or conduct of the study 2. Involvement in other PD-related research

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
1. Attitude to Personality Disorder Questionnaire (APDQ; Bowers & Allan, 2006). We used the 40-item APDQ to assess stigmatising attitudes towards clients with a PD. 2. Helping Alliance Questionnaire?Therapist Version (HAQ-II; Luborsky et al., 1996). We used the 19-item HAQ-II to measure the quality of the therapeutic relationship from the member of staff?s perspective. 3. The Social Distancing Scale (SDS; Link, 1987). We modified the 7-item SDS by replacing all references to ?mental illness? with ?personality disorder?, and used the revised version to assess the extent to which staff distanced themselves from their PD clients. All outcomes were measured at the same time points: baseline, post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up.	—

Measure

Time frame

1. Attitude to Personality Disorder Questionnaire (APDQ; Bowers & Allan, 2006). We used the 40-item APDQ to assess stigmatising attitudes towards clients with a PD. 2. Helping Alliance Questionnaire?Therapist Version (HAQ-II; Luborsky et al., 1996). We used the 19-item HAQ-II to measure the quality of the therapeutic relationship from the member of staff?s perspective. 3. The Social Distancing Scale (SDS; Link, 1987). We modified the 7-item SDS by replacing all references to ?mental illness? with ?personality disorder?, and used the revised version to assess the extent to which staff distanced themselves from their PD clients. All outcomes were measured at the same time points: baseline, post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up.

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1. Maslach?s Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1997) We used the 22-item MBI to measure staff burnout. Higher scores indicate higher burnout. 2. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1997). The GHQ measures psychological distress were assessed using the 22-item scale, with higher scores indicating higher distress. 3. Valued Living Questionnaire (VLQ; Wilson, 2008). The VLQ assesses the degree to which respondents? actions are consistent with their values. Lower scores indicate less discrepancy between values and actions. Control measures. 1. Marlowe-Crowne Questionnaire (MCQ; Marlow-Crowne, 1964). The 8-item was used to assess the degree to which staff tended to act in socially desirable ways in their lives. In addition, 2. Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ; Devilly & Borkovec, 2000). The 6-item CEQ was administered before training to ascertain whether participants had any preconceived perceptions about the training. All outcomes were measured at the same time points: baseline, post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up. The Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire was measured at baseline only.	—

Measure

Time frame

1. Maslach?s Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1997) We used the 22-item MBI to measure staff burnout. Higher scores indicate higher burnout. 2. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1997). The GHQ measures psychological distress were assessed using the 22-item scale, with higher scores indicating higher distress. 3. Valued Living Questionnaire (VLQ; Wilson, 2008). The VLQ assesses the degree to which respondents? actions are consistent with their values. Lower scores indicate less discrepancy between values and actions. Control measures. 1. Marlowe-Crowne Questionnaire (MCQ; Marlow-Crowne, 1964). The 8-item was used to assess the degree to which staff tended to act in socially desirable ways in their lives. In addition, 2. Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ; Devilly & Borkovec, 2000). The 6-item CEQ was administered before training to ascertain whether participants had any preconceived perceptions about the training. All outcomes were measured at the same time points: baseline, post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up. The Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire was measured at baseline only.

—

Countries

United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026