Cited by 93Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Mentalization‐based treatment in groups for adolescents with borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Beck, Emma, Bo, Sune, Jørgensen, Mie Sedoc, Gondan, Matthias, Poulsen, Stig, Storebø, Ole Jakob, Fjellerad Andersen, Christian, Folmo, Espen +3 more·2020·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) typically onsets in adolescence and predicts later functional disability in adulthood. Highly structured evidence‐based psychotherapeutic programs, including mentalization‐based treatment (MBT), are first choice treatment. The efficacy of MBT for BPD has mainly been tested with adults, and no RCT has examined the effectiveness of MBT in groups (MBT‐G) for adolescent BPD. Method: A total of 112 adolescents (111 females) with BPD (106) or BPD symptoms ≥4 DSM‐5 criteria (5) referred to child and adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics were randomized to a 1‐year MBT‐G, consisting of three introductory, psychoeducative sessions, 37 weekly group sessions, five individual case formulation sessions, and six group sessions for caregivers, or treatment as usual (TAU) with at least 12 monthly individual sessions. The primary outcome was the score on the borderline personality features scale for children (BPFS‐C); secondary outcomes included self‐harm, depression, externalizing and internalizing symptoms (all self‐report), caregiver reports, social functioning, and borderline symptoms rated by blinded clinicians. Outcome assessments were made at baseline, after 10, 20, and 30 weeks, and at end of treatment (EOT). The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT02068326. Results: At EOT, the primary outcome was 71.3 ( SD = 15.0) in the MBT‐G group and 71.3 ( SD = 15.2) in the TAU group (adjusted mean difference 0.4 BPFS‐C units in favor of MBT‐G, 95% confidence interval −6.3 to 7.1, p = .91). No significant group differences were found in the secondary outcomes. 29% in both groups remitted. 29% of the MBT group completed less than half of the sessions compared with 7% of the control group. Conclusions: There is no indication for superiority of either therapy method. The low remission rate points to the importance of continued research into early intervention. Specifically, retention problems need to be addressed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcpp.13152

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Beck, J. S., Beck, A. T., Jolly, J. B., & Steer, R. A. (2012). Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional & Social Impairment (2nd ed.). Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.
  2. First, M., Gibbon, M., & Spitzer, R. (1997). Structured clinical interviews for DSM-IV Axix-II personality disorders. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press.
  3. Karterud, S. W. (2013). Personlighedsforstyrrelser i DSM-IV og ICD-10. In S. W. Karterud, T. Wilberg, & O. Urnes (Eds.), Personlighedspsykiatri (1st ed., pp. 209-81). København: Akademisk Forlag.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beck, E., Bo, S., Jørgensen, M. S., Gondan, M., Poulsen, S., Storebø, O. J., Fjellerad Andersen, C., Folmo, E., Sharp, C., Pedersen, J., & Simonsen, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Region Zealand (DK)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Department Region Zealand Denmark
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • University of the Free State (ZA)
Corresponding author
Beck, Emma
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-11-08
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
594-604
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W2986237036
Cited by
93
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15
FWCI
11.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
TrygFonden (115638)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
borderline personality disorder, adolescents, mentalization-based treatment, group therapy, treatment retention, early intervention, self-harm, depression, caregiver involvement, case formulation
MeSH terms
Mentalization, Adolescent, Adult, Borderline Personality Disorder, Depression, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Self-Injurious Behavior, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review