Clinical utility of the AMPD

Clinical utility of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders DSM-5: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

NL-OMON

Registry ID

NL-OMON25774

Enrollment

128

Registered

2021-01-06

Start date

2021-10-03

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2024-06-11

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

Conditions

Personality disorders

Interventions

None listed

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: In order to be eligible to participate in this study, a subject must meet all of the following criteria (inclusion criteria are similar to the general criteria used in screening referrals at de Viersprong, all patients that are screened and eligible for an admission procedure at de Viersprong will be included): - (Presumed) personality disordered

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: A potential subject who meets any of the following criteria will be excluded from participation in this study: - IQ below 80 - Acute Psychotic disorder

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Clinical utility questionnaire- Patient version A specific outcome instrument measuring clinical utility for patients has been developed for the purpose of this study. Given the lack of such an instrument, a focus group was organized to collect implicit patient knowledge on clinical utility of PD assessment. The procedure has been described in a submitted paper. Briefly: a group of patients was asked to brainstorm about the concept of clinical utility of assessment; this procedure was repeated with other patient groups until no new information arose. The resulting themes were described and returned to all participants in a Delphi procedure until sufficient consensus (at least 75%) was reached. Following up on consensus on the definition, specific items were formulated to assess the aspects of clinical utility that had emerged from the focus groups, until sufficient consensus was reached. We found that patients defined clinical utility of assessment as the ability of an assessment procedure to 1) Be destigmatizing, 2) Start a process in which the patient starts to get more insight into patterns and become hopeful and motivated to change, 3) Summarize the core patterns which underly the patients’ problems, 4) Collaboratively work with the patient, and 5) Communicate transparently with the patient about the results of the assessment. Clinical utility questionnaire – Clinician version Although some very brief ‘top-down’ constructed measures for clinician clinical utility exist, we deemed these instruments incomplete and insufficient. Similarly as for patients, we used several focus groups and a subsequent Delphi procedure to define clinical utility of PD assessment from a clinician perspective and to formulate items to assess each of these aspects. Clinicians defined clinical utility of assessment as the ability of an assessment procedure to 1) Start a process in which the patient becomes curious about the problems he is facing and gets motivated to change, 2) Summar	—

Measure

Time frame

Clinical utility questionnaire- Patient version A specific outcome instrument measuring clinical utility for patients has been developed for the purpose of this study. Given the lack of such an instrument, a focus group was organized to collect implicit patient knowledge on clinical utility of PD assessment. The procedure has been described in a submitted paper. Briefly: a group of patients was asked to brainstorm about the concept of clinical utility of assessment; this procedure was repeated with other patient groups until no new information arose. The resulting themes were described and returned to all participants in a Delphi procedure until sufficient consensus (at least 75%) was reached. Following up on consensus on the definition, specific items were formulated to assess the aspects of clinical utility that had emerged from the focus groups, until sufficient consensus was reached. We found that patients defined clinical utility of assessment as the ability of an assessment procedure to 1) Be destigmatizing, 2) Start a process in which the patient starts to get more insight into patterns and become hopeful and motivated to change, 3) Summarize the core patterns which underly the patients’ problems, 4) Collaboratively work with the patient, and 5) Communicate transparently with the patient about the results of the assessment. Clinical utility questionnaire – Clinician version Although some very brief ‘top-down’ constructed measures for clinician clinical utility exist, we deemed these instruments incomplete and insufficient. Similarly as for patients, we used several focus groups and a subsequent Delphi procedure to define clinical utility of PD assessment from a clinician perspective and to formulate items to assess each of these aspects. Clinicians defined clinical utility of assessment as the ability of an assessment procedure to 1) Start a process in which the patient becomes curious about the problems he is facing and gets motivated to change, 2) Summar

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Outcome expectancy Expectancy for Future Treatment Scale (EFTS; available from project leader): a one-item visual analogue scale for patients to rate their expectancy regarding future treatment (“To what extent do you believe this intervention will benefit your future treatment?”). Satisfaction For assessing general satisfaction with the assessment procedure we will use questions from the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (Larsen et al., 1979). The questionnaire consists of 8 items, rated on a 4-point Likert scale. Internal consistency and concurrent validity of the CSQ-8 in a Dutch sample of 262 patients was high, with a = .92 (de Wilde & Hendriks, 2005). Benefits of assessment The assessment questionnaire (Finn et al., 1994) will be used to assess different aspects of patient’s experience of the assessment procedure. The AQ is a 48-item self-report questionnaire, with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). It has been used in research concerning therapeutic/ collaborative assessment (Holst et al., 2009; Allen et al., 2003). The questionnaire consists of four factors: New self-awareness/understanding, Positive accurate mirroring, Positive relationship with the examiner, Negative Feelings about the assessment. Motivation Motivation will be assessed with the motivation for treatment questionnaire (MTQ-8, van Beek & Verheul, 2008), an 8-item self-report questionnaire comprised of two factors: need for help and readiness to change. Internal consistency of the MTQ-8 is fair to good, with a’s ranging from .63 to .77. Clinical utility scale clinicians Morey (2014) developed a 6-items to assess different aspects of clinical utility in clinicians, which will be used as a secondary outcome to enhance comparability with other international studies.	—

Measure

Time frame

Outcome expectancy Expectancy for Future Treatment Scale (EFTS; available from project leader): a one-item visual analogue scale for patients to rate their expectancy regarding future treatment (“To what extent do you believe this intervention will benefit your future treatment?”). Satisfaction For assessing general satisfaction with the assessment procedure we will use questions from the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (Larsen et al., 1979). The questionnaire consists of 8 items, rated on a 4-point Likert scale. Internal consistency and concurrent validity of the CSQ-8 in a Dutch sample of 262 patients was high, with a = .92 (de Wilde & Hendriks, 2005). Benefits of assessment The assessment questionnaire (Finn et al., 1994) will be used to assess different aspects of patient’s experience of the assessment procedure. The AQ is a 48-item self-report questionnaire, with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). It has been used in research concerning therapeutic/ collaborative assessment (Holst et al., 2009; Allen et al., 2003). The questionnaire consists of four factors: New self-awareness/understanding, Positive accurate mirroring, Positive relationship with the examiner, Negative Feelings about the assessment. Motivation Motivation will be assessed with the motivation for treatment questionnaire (MTQ-8, van Beek & Verheul, 2008), an 8-item self-report questionnaire comprised of two factors: need for help and readiness to change. Internal consistency of the MTQ-8 is fair to good, with a’s ranging from .63 to .77. Clinical utility scale clinicians Morey (2014) developed a 6-items to assess different aspects of clinical utility in clinicians, which will be used as a secondary outcome to enhance comparability with other international studies.

—

Contacts

Public ContactLaura Weekers

De Viersprong

laura.weekers@deviersprong.nl0887656832

Outcome results