Ameliorating patient stigma amongst staff working with personality disorder
| ISRCTN | ISRCTN18382289 |
|---|---|
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18382289 |
| Secondary identifying numbers | N/A |
- Submission date
- 21/03/2013
- Registration date
- 15/04/2013
- Last edited
- 27/06/2016
- Recruitment status
- No longer recruiting
- Overall study status
- Completed
- Condition category
- Mental and Behavioural Disorders
Plain English Summary
Background and study aims
Patients diagnosed with a Personality Disorder (PD) are often described as difficult. The term appears frequently in the professional literature of, for example, psychiatric services, nursing and psychology. This characterisation of patients risks creating stigma towards them, which may undermine their care. In the UK, for example, the Department of Health found it necessary to issue policy guidelines to service providers, requiring that PD is no longer a diagnosis of exclusion. The present study compared the impact of two training programmes aimed at reducing staff stigma derived from two markedly different psychotherapeutic approaches. Acceptance and Commitment Training (ACTr), based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), uses the principles of acceptance, mindfulness, values, and action to help staff to manage their private thoughts and feelings that arise in working with PD patients. In contrast, (Dialectical Behavioural Training (DBTr), based on Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT), teaches staff the skills necessary to manage their patients difficulties, based on the Biosocial Theory which provides a framework for understanding the nature of PD.
Who can participate?
Participants were healthcare staff working in UK state-funded or charitable institutions providing services for PD patients. All volunteered to take part in response to internal advertisements offering a free 2-day staff development course. After receiving an information pack outlining the study, those who wished to participate returned a signed consent form.
What does the study involve?
Both training interventions were delivered in the form of a 2-day staff workshop, the impact of which was assessed in terms of changes in staff stigmatizing attitudes, factors relating to staff-patient relations (therapeutic relationship, and social distancing) and staff wellbeing (burnout, psychological distress and flexibility). All measures in this study were self-report questionnaires. After being randomly allocated to one of the two training programmes, but before the first training session, participants privately completed a questionnaire pack. A post-training questionnaire pack was completed following the training, and again at 6-month follow-up.
What are the possible benefits and risks of participating?
Both workshops were expected to reduce stigmatising attitudes amongst staff, improve self-reports of their therapeutic relationships, and improve the well-being of staff. All participants were monitored throughout the study and had access to support from the two trainers both of whom are clinical psychologists - if they required this.
Where is the study run from?
All workshops were conducted away from staff workplaces at a single UK site in Bournemouth, Dorset. The research team were based at Dorset HealthCare NHS Foundation Trust and the Universities of Bournemouth and Southampton (UK).
When is the study starting and how long is it expected to run for?
May 2007 to January 2008
Who is funding the project?
The study was funded by the Health Foundation Leadership through Research Award, awarded to Prof Sue Clarke and also an ESRC Award Post Graduate studentship, awarded to Prof Bob Remington, and held by Dr Georgina Taylor.
Who is the main contact?
Prof Sue Clarke
susan.clarke@dhuft.nhs.uk
Contact information
Scientific
University Department of Mental Health
St Ann's Hospital
69 Haven Road
Canford Cliffs
Poole
BH13 7LN
United Kingdom
| Phone | +44 (0)1202 492129 |
|---|---|
| susan.clarke@dhuft.nhs.uk |
Study information
| Study design | Randomised controlled trial with intention to treat analysis |
|---|---|
| Primary study design | Interventional |
| Secondary study design | Randomised controlled trial |
| Study setting(s) | Other |
| Study type | Treatment |
| Participant information sheet | Not available in web format; please use the contact details below to request a participant information sheet |
| Scientific title | Ameliorating patient stigma amongst staff working with personality disorder: randomised controlled trial of self-management vs skills training |
| Study hypothesis | The study was designed to compare the impact of two training programmes aimed at reducing staff stigma derived from two different psychotherapeutic approaches; Acceptance and Commitment Training (ACTr), based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and (Dialectical Behavioural Training (DBTr), based on Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT). |
| Ethics approval(s) | UK National Health Service Research Ethics Committee, 02/11/2006, Dorset:06/Q2201/158 |
| Condition | Patient stigma amongst staff working with personality disorder |
| Intervention | Acceptance and commitment training (ACTr) intervention. This training intervention sought to help staff to understand the origins of the negative private experiences sometimes triggered by their patients, mindfully noticing them as they occurred, and understanding that they are unavoidable consequences of their challenging work. Once difficult thoughts could be self-compassionately accepted, the training moved towards helping staff to reconnect with their professional and personal values and letting these guide their actions. During the final part of the workshop we offered participants the opportunity to identify any aspect of their behaviour that they wanted to change in the service of leading a more values-consistent life, and make a public commitment to it. Dialectical Behaviour Training (DBTr). In contrast with the ACTr program which focused on self-management, DBTr taught staff techniques for managing their patients. Drawing on Linehans account of severe PD and her skills training manual (Linehan,1993), training involved both experiential group and individual exercises, and didactic presentations. The validation component of DBTr taught participants ways in which they could validate their patients experience. The change component taught participants how to conduct behavioural chain analyses of target problems and identify DBT solutions. Total duration of the actual interventions were 2 days. The study period was a total of 6 months (for both interventions). |
| Intervention type | Behavioural |
| Primary outcome measure | We used the 40-item Attitude to Personality Disorder Questionnaire (APDQ) to assess stigmatizing attitudes of staff towards PD patients. Staff perceptions of the quality of their therapeutic relationship with PD patients was measured using the 19-item Helping Alliance Questionnaire Therapist Version (HAQ-II). We assessed the degree to which staff distanced themselves from PD patients using the 7-item Social Distancing Scale (SDS), with all references to mental illness replaced with personality disorder. All outcomes were measured at the same time points: baseline, post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up |
| Secondary outcome measures | 1. Staff burnout and psychological distress were assessed using, respectively, the 22-item Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the 28-item General Health Questionnaire, (GHQ). 2. We also used the 7-item Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II) to assess staff psychological flexibility. 3. Credibility and Expectancy. The Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) was used to determine the credibility of a described training approach and participants expectations of benefits from it. Two separate scales are summed to produce a total score, with higher scores reflecting a greater level of preconceived ideas about the training. All outcomes were measured at the same time points: baseline, post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up. Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire was measured at baseline only. |
| Overall study start date | 01/05/2007 |
| Overall study end date | 01/01/2008 |
Eligibility
| Participant type(s) | Health professional |
|---|---|
| Age group | Adult |
| Sex | Both |
| Target number of participants | The study aimed to recruit 150 participants |
| Participant 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. |
| Participant exclusion criteria | 1. Involvement in development or conduct of the study 2. Involvement in other PD-related research |
| Recruitment start date | 01/05/2007 |
| Recruitment end date | 01/01/2008 |
Locations
Countries of recruitment
- England
- United Kingdom
Study participating centre
BH13 7LN
United Kingdom
Sponsor information
Hospital/treatment centre
11 Shelley Road
Boscombe
Bournemouth
BH1 4JQ
England
United Kingdom
| paul.dillon@dhuft.nhs.uk | |
"ROR" |
https://ror.org/04esx4891 |
Funders
Funder type
Charity
No information available
Results and Publications
| Intention to publish date | |
|---|---|
| Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to share | No |
| IPD sharing plan summary | Not provided at time of registration |
| Publication and dissemination plan | Not provided at time of registration |
| IPD sharing plan |
Study outputs
| Output type | Details | Date created | Date added | Peer reviewed? | Patient-facing? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results article | results | 01/11/2015 | Yes | No |
Editorial Notes
27/06/2016: Publication reference added.
