The course of borderline personality disorder from adolescence to early adulthood: A 5-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the medium- to long-term clinical and functional course for treatment-seeking adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are lacking. This study aims to outline the psychopathological and functional status of participants, five years after being diagnosed with BPD during adolescence. METHODS: Participants were originally enrolled in a randomized clinical trial that compared mentalization-based group treatment with treatment as usual for adolescents with BPD. Semi-structured interview assessments at five-year follow-up included the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), alcohol, substance and tobacco use, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex PTSD, and general functioning were assessed using self-report instruments. RESULTS: 97 of the original sample of 111 participants (87%) participated. They were aged 19-23 years. The most prevalent disorders were ADHD (59%), any personality disorder (47%) of which half continued to meet criteria for BPD (24%), anxiety disorders (37%), depressive disorders (32%), PTSD or complex PTSD (20%), schizophrenia (16%), and eating disorders (13%). Only 16% did not meet criteria for any mental disorder. Approximately half of the sample were in psychological and/or psychopharmacological treatment at the time of follow-up. Their general functioning remained impaired, with 36% not engaged in education, employment or training (NEET), which is nearly four times the rate of NEET in the same age group in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Although stability of the categorical BPD diagnosis is modest, adolescents meeting diagnostic criteria for BPD show a broad range of poor outcomes at five-year follow-up. BPD appears to be a marker of general maladjustment during adolescence and a harbinger of severe problems during the transition to young adulthood. Early intervention programs for adolescents diagnosed with BPD should focus upon a broad range of functional and psychopathological outcomes, especially social and vocational support, rather than the narrow BPD diagnosis.

ICD-11 personality disorder features in the danish general population: Cut-offs and prevalence rates for severity levels.

INTRODUCTION: Prevalence rates and correlates of personality disorders (PD) are relevant to health care policy and planning. OBJECTIVES: To present normative data for self-reported ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) features including tentative cut-off scores and prevalence rates for severity levels along with psychosocial correlates. METHODS: The Personality Disorder Severity ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) scale and criterion measures of impairment were administered to a social-demographically stratified sample of Danish citizens (N = 8,941) of which 3,044 delivered complete data. Item-Response Theory (IRT) was employed to indicate cut-offs based on standard deviations from the latent mean. RESULTS: The unidimensionality of the PDS-ICD-11 score was supported and IRT analysis suggested norm-based thresholds at latent severity levels. Expected associations with criterion measures were found. CONCLUSION: The normative data portray ICD-11 PD features in the general population and allow for interpretation of PDS-ICD-11 scores (e.g., scores of 12, 16, and 19 may indicate mild, moderate, and severe dysfunction), which may inform health care policy and planning. A total weighted prevalence of 6.9 % of the Danish general population is estimated to have clinically significant personality dysfunction, proportionally composed of Mild (4.8 %), Moderate (1.2 %), and Severe (0.9 %) levels. Future research should corroborate these findings using relevant clinical samples and methods.

Prevalence and incidence of personality disorders among children and adolescents in Danish mental health services: a nationwide register study.

A few epidemiological studies have examined personality disorders (PDs) among children and adolescents in secondary mental health services. This study aims to describe the prevalence and incidence of PDs among children and adolescents who have attended Danish child and adolescent psychiatric services (CAPS). Using register-based data, we studied all patients under the age of 18 years who were admitted to in- and outpatient CAPS (N = 115,121) in Denmark from 2007 to 2017. A total of 4952 patients were diagnosed with a PD during the study period. The mean prevalence was 859 patients per year, and the mean incidence was 274 patients per year, including an increased incidence and prevalence of borderline, anxious, and unspecified PDs over the decade. The number of patients diagnosed with PDs increased from 700 to 851 per year, but the proportion of patients with PDs compared to all psychiatric diagnoses decreased from 4.2% to 2.8% over the study period. The PD population had an older age (14.8 years vs. 11.3 years; p < 0.001), a higher likelihood of being female (74% vs. 44%; p < 0.001), and four times more contacts with the psychiatric emergency departments than other patients with a psychiatric diagnosis. Future studies should focus on (a) implementing further epidemiological studies in different countries; (b) tracking diagnostic practices to facilitate comparisons and provide feedback for training clinicians and raising awareness; and (c) estimating trajectories of PDs, including costs within the CAPS, to facilitate informed decision-making regarding the future organization and provision of services to these children, adolescents, and their families.

Clinical trials in personality disorders: Recommendations for study design and conduct.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a highly studied condition. During the last 3 decades, the understanding of the disorder has substantially changed, based on thorough, accumulating research. At the same time, the interest in BPD is still not decreasing but continues to grow. This article aims to critically discuss research trends in clinical trials of personality disorders in general and BPD in particular, to highlight topics that deserve closer attention, and to give recommendations for the design and conduct of future psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy studies in the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Perspectives on Dialectical Behavior Therapy and Mentalization-Based Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: Same, Different, Complementary?

Current evidence suggests that individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are likely to benefit from specialized, or BPD-specific, treatments. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and mentalization-based treatment (MBT) are currently the most intensively researched BPD treatments. Reviewing the current research, this paper highlights similarities and differences between the two treatments, and discusses possible ways they could complement each other. As the effectiveness of specialized treatments for BPD in general has been determined with some certainty, research now tends towards individualized approaches, identifying predictors of optimal treatment response. However, it is still to be settled who might profit from a combination of or sequential treatment with DBT and MBT.

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.

The in-session discourse of unresolved/disorganized psychotherapy patients: An exploratory study of an attachment classification.

The Unresolved/disorganized (U/d) attachment classification has generated considerable interest among clinicians. This is in part based on its empirical associations with adult mental health, parenting practices, and treatment outcomes. Despite decades of theorizing, however, we have little empirical information regarding how patients with a U/d classification assigned by accredited coders actually behave or speak in psychotherapy sessions. Here, we take a step towards bridging this gap by reporting our observations of the psychotherapy session transcripts of 40 outpatients who were independently classified as U/d on the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), the gold standard measure of adult attachment research. These patients were extracted from a larger sample of 181 and compared to others without a U/d classification. In this paper, we discuss two different discourse styles associated with a U/d classification. Some U/d patients did not seem to sufficiently elicit the therapist's endorsement of what they said. For example, they did not justify their claims with examples or explanations, or did not consider others' intentions or experiences. Other U/d patients were credible, but left the listener uncertain as to the underlying point of their discourse, for example, by glaringly omitting the consequences of their experiences, or interrupting their narratives mid-way. In the discussion, we place these observations in the context of recent thinking on attachment and epistemic trust, and discuss how this study may form the basis for future quantitative studies of psychotherapy.

Structured group psychotherapies: Advantages, challenges, and possibilities.

OBJECTIVE: Structured group therapies offer the delivery of theory-specific interventions combined with beneficial group processes. Usually time-limited, such treatments present several advantages for both clinicians and patients. METHODS: Several different models of structured group therapy are highlighted, with a brief description of their intended populations and treatment mechanisms. RESULTS: Possibilities and challenges in the advancement of structured group psychotherapy are discussed. CONCLUSION: Further research and training efforts are needed to support the expansion of structured group treatments, which in turn may help to increase patient access to effective psychotherapy.

Improving treatment outcomes for adolescents with borderline personality disorder through a socioecological approach.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of studies evaluating treatment efficacy for adolescents diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. The few available randomized controlled trials that have been conducted show modest results and treatments appear to have equivalent effects. The current paper draws on (a) the lessons learnt from the last 50 years of psychotherapy research in general and (b) recent advances in mentalization-based understanding of why treatment works, which together point to the importance of following a socioecological approach in the treatment of personality problems in adolescence - a developmental period that insists on a treatment approach that goes beyond the therapist-client dyad. CASE PRESENTATION: Here, we describe such an approach, and offer a clinical case example with a young 16-year old girl diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, to illustrate what a shift toward a more socioecological approach would entail. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical impact of the socioecological approach and the potential benefits as illustrated in the current case illustration, offers a framework that justifies and allows for the expansion of service delivery for youth with borderline personality disorder beyond dyadic therapist-client work.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders.

BACKGROUND: Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model). MAIN RESULTS: We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: a focused systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). AIMS: To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely. METHOD: We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P < 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P < 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD -0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference -8.49, P < 0.00001), manual-assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference -3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD -0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD -0.48, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings.

Reconceptualization of borderline conditions through the lens of the alternative model of personality disorders.

Borderline (BPD) and schizotypal personality disorder (SPD) were introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III). However, the clinical differentiation of the 2 diagnoses (e.g., psychotic-like features) was challenging for diagnostic classification and clinical management. With the introduction of the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) in DSM-5 Section III, a dimensional approach was proposed, which potentially holds promise for better future differentiation between BPD and SPD. The present study sought to examine the psychopathology using the AMPD model. A total of 105 patients were interviewed, 25 were excluded according to exclusion criteria, and the final sample comprised 80 patients who fulfilled the DSM-5 criteria for BPD (n = 35), SPD (n = 25), and comorbid BPD + SPD (n = 20), respectively. All patients were administered The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders Modules I and II. One-way analysis of variance tests with planned contrasts were used. Results showed that for AMPD Criterion A, the BPD + SPD group had the most severe impairment of personality functioning, except for Identity, where the SPD group showed the most severe impairment. For AMPD Criterion B, the domain of Detachment and the facet of Eccentricity from the Psychoticism domain were most prominent for the SPD group relative to the 2 other groups. The differentiating between BPD and SPD manifestations of cognitive/perceptual disturbances does not seem resolved by the Psychoticism domain, which covers broader aspects of psychopathology. Future research should further investigate the construct of Psychoticism, especially to differentiate nonpsychotic symptoms (e.g., dissociation) and address thought disorder. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Individual participant data systematic reviews with meta-analyses of psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder.

INTRODUCTION: The heterogeneity in people with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and the range of specialised psychotherapies means that people with certain BPD characteristics might benefit more or less from different types of psychotherapy. Identifying moderating characteristics of individuals is a key to refine and tailor standard treatments so they match the specificities of the individual participant. The objective of this is to improve the quality of care and the individual outcomes. We will do so by performing three systematic reviews with meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD). The aim of these reviews is to investigate potential predictors and moderating patient characteristics on treatment outcomes for patients with BPD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We performed comprehensive searches in 22 databases and trial registries up to October 6th 2020. These will be updated with a top-up search up until June 2021. Our primary meta-analytic method will be the one-stage random-effects approach. To identify predictors, we will use the one-stage model that accounts for interaction between covariates and treatment allocation. Heterogeneity in case-mix will be assessed with a membership model based on a multinomial logistic regression where study membership is the outcome. A random-effects meta-analysis is chosen to account for expected levels of heterogeneity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The statistical analyses will be conducted on anonymised data that have already been approved by the respective ethical committees that originally assessed the included trials. The three IPD reviews will be published in high-impact factor journals and their results will be presented at international conferences and national seminars. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021210688.

Narrative coherence of autobiographical memories in women with borderline personality disorder and associations with childhood adversity.

BACKGROUND: People suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) seem to have incoherent autobiographical narratives. Tentative evidence suggests that reduced narrative coherence of autobiographical memories is associated with insecure attachment. However, it remains unknown whether incoherent autobiographical narratives in people with BPD are coupled to experiences of childhood trauma, which is highly prevalent in BPD. METHOD: We examined if written autobiographical memories in 26 female participants with BPD had reduced narrative coherence relative to 28 healthy female controls and whether more incoherent narratives were associated with childhood trauma. RESULTS: As hypothesized, results showed that compared to controls, the autobiographical memories in participants with BPD had reduced narrative coherence, specifically inadequate orientation about the narrative and lack of narrative structure. More self-reported childhood adversity was coupled to lower orientation across groups whereas increased childhood adversity showed a specific relationship to lowered narrative structure in BPD participants. CONCLUSION: Women with BPD had incoherent autobiographical narratives, and reduced narrative coherence was associated with more self-reported childhood adversity, which appeared to explain the group differences.

Exploring Identity Disturbance and Psychotic Spectrum Symptoms as Predictors of Borderline and Schizotypal Personality Disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) and schizotypal personality disorder (SPD) were introduced in DSM-III and retained in DSM-5 Section II. They often co-occur and some aspects of the clinical differentiation between the 2 diagnoses remain unclear (e.g., psychotic-like features and identity disturbance). METHODS: The present study explored if self-reported identity disturbance and psychosis proneness could discriminate between the BPD and SPD DSM-5 diagnoses. All patients were interviewed with the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders, and administered the Inventory of Personality Organization, Self-Concept and Identity Measure, Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire, Perceptual Aberration Scale, and the Magical Ideation Scale. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were initially assessed, 26 were excluded, and the final sample (N = 79) was composed of 34 BPD patients, 25 SPD patients, and 20 patients with co-occurring SPD and BPD. The BPD group (n = 34) was first compared with the pure SPD group (n = 25), and secondly with the total group of patients diagnosed with SPD (n = 25 + 20). Logistic regression analyses indicated that primitive defenses and disorganization best differentiated the BPD and the pure SPD group, while primitive defenses and interpersonal factor along with perceptual aberrations best differentiated the BPD and the total SPD group. CONCLUSION: Identity disturbance did not predict the diagnostic groups, but BPD patients were characterized by primitive defenses, which are closely related to identity disturbance. Pure SPD was characterized by oddness/eccentricity, while the lack of specificity for cognitive-perceptual symptoms suggests that the positive symptoms do not differentiate BPD from SPD.

Ego-resiliency in borderline personality disorder and the mediating role of positive and negative affect on its associations with symptom severity and quality of life in daily life.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious mental health condition associated with severe symptoms of distress and poor quality of life (QoL). Research outside the field of BPD suggests that ego-resiliency is negatively associated with psychopathology and positively associated with a range of positive life outcomes. Thus, ego-resiliency may be a valuable construct for furthering our understanding and treatment of BPD. However, the mechanisms linking ego-resiliency to psychopathology and QoL in relation to BPD have not been examined and explored by research. This study has addressed this gap in the collective knowledge by evaluating whether within-person associations between daily reports of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) mediated the relationship between ego-resiliency, BPD symptom severity, and QoL. For 21 consecutive days, 72 women diagnosed with BPD completed end-of-day electronic assessments regarding ego-resiliency, PA and NA, symptom severity, and QoL. Multilevel structural equation modelling established that PA and NA were parallel mediators linking ego-resiliency with BPD symptom severity and QoL. As hypothesized, the path to QoL was stronger through PA than through NA. The mediation paths through NA and PA to BPD symptom severity were both significant, but their strength did not differ. Our findings align with the assertions of theories on emotion, thus suggesting a two-factor approach to PA and NA. Future research can build on these findings by developing psychotherapeutic interventions designed not only to reduce symptom severity but also to enhance PA in individuals with BPD and determine whether an increase in PA is associated with improved QoL.

Predictors of criminal offending in a clinical sample of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia: A 6-year follow-up study.

Criminal behavior in schizophrenia has been associated with a number of risk factors including symptoms of schizophrenia, co-occurring personality disorders (PDs), substance abuse, intellectual and cognitive dysfunctions, history of violence, and a number of sociodemographic variables. However, the relative importance and predictive power of these factors when considered simultaneously is understudied. In this 6-year follow-up study, we examined the association of these factors with criminal offending in a sample of 108 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia (80.6% men). The proportion of offenders during the follow-up period was 53.7%. A cox proportional hazards model showed that Facet 3 and Facet 4 of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, passive-aggressive PD, narcissistic PD, and Global Assessment Functioning were the only significant predictors of offending when all putative risk factors were considered simultaneously. Results also revealed high predictive accuracy of the total score of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for offending. Of all potential predictors considered, personality pathology and specifically the antisocial facet of psychopathy emerged as the main predictor of criminal behavior in patients with schizophrenia. These results underscore the importance of including an assessment of personality pathology, including psychopathy, in the evaluation of risk for violence and crime in schizophrenia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Schizotypy and psychopathic tendencies interactively improve misattribution of affect in boys with conduct problems.

Psychopathic tendencies are associated with difficulties in affective theory of mind (ToM), that is, in recognizing others affective mental states. In clinical and non-clinical adult samples, it has been shown that where psychopathic tendencies co-occur with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, the impairing effects of psychopathic tendencies on ToM are attenuated. These effects are yet to be examined in adolescents. We examined if the impairing effect of psychopathic tendencies on affective ToM was attenuated with increasing severity of schizotypal personality disorder (PD) in a sample of 80 incarcerated adolescent boys. We showed that the impairing effect of psychopathic tendencies on the recognition of neutral mental states, but not positive or negative mental states, was evident when the relative severity of schizotypal PD was low. However, with higher scores on both measures, we observed better performance in judging neutral mental states. The preservation of affective ToM in adolescents who show elevations in psychopathic tendencies and schizotypal PD may enable them to manipulate and extort their victims for personal gain. Our results emphasize the need to consider comorbidity in clinical case formulation when working with adolescents with conduct problems and psychopathic tendencies. More broadly, our results also suggest that the pattern of social cognitive abilities associated with co-occurring psychopathology does not always conform to an often-theorized double-dose of deficit hypothesis.

What works for adolescents with borderline personality disorder: towards a developmentally informed understanding and structured treatment model.

The efficacy of treatment of borderline personality disorder in adolescents is an underresearched area. Although increasing research in borderline personality disorder in adolescents has emerged over the last decade there is a paucity of knowledge about how treatment is adequately designed for this group of patients. As a consequence, it is currently difficult to provide evidence-based guidelines and firm recommendations for how to design and implement borderline treatment in adolescence. In this selective review we summarize the most important research findings concerning treatment for adolescents with borderline personality disorder, including a recent mentalisation-based group treatment program. We highlight pivotal developmental obstacles for psychotherapy in adolescence and integrate these into a framework for the understanding and designing of effective treatment of borderline in adolescence.

Positive Affect Is Associated With Decreased Symptom Severity in the Daily Lives of Individuals With Borderline Personality Disorder.

Previous research has repeatedly demonstrated positive associations between negative affect (NA) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) symptoms in daily life, but studies have rarely addressed potential effects of positive affect (PA). Consequently, little is known about how PA in daily life covaries with symptoms of BPD. The authors assessed the effects of both PA and NA levels on BPD symptom severity in a sample of 81 treatment-seeking women diagnosed with BPD over a period of 21 days, employing a daily diary design. Using multivariate multilevel modeling, the authors obtained negative associations between PA levels and daily BPD severity in total and at the level of the individual symptoms inappropriate anger, affective instability, emptiness, identity disturbance, and paranoid ideation/dissociation. Moreover, the authors replicated previously reported positive associations between NA and BPD severity for all nine symptoms. Future research can address whether increasing PA in the treatment of BPD may potentially help reduce symptom burden.