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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. 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 different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects. 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 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.

Does Affective Theory of Mind Contribute to Proactive Aggression in Boys with Conduct Problems and Psychopathic Tendencies?

Adolescent psychopathic tendencies are associated with phenotypic increases in proactive aggression. However, the extent to which an understanding of others' affective mental states, or affective theory of mind (ToM), contributes to proactive aggression remains unknown. We examined how performance on a well-known test of affective ToM, based on cropped images of the eye region, contributes to reactive and proactive types of aggression in a mixed ethnicity sample of 80 incarcerated adolescent boys. A hierarchical regression model showed that affective ToM predicted proactive aggression over and above the influence of clinically rated psychopathic tendencies. Importantly, affective ToM was unrelated to reactive aggression. Our results suggest that being able to recognize others' affective mental states may be an important factor in aggressing against others for personal gain. These findings have implications for interventions designed to enhance ToM in youth with conduct problems.

Millon's Contributions to the International Society for the Study of Personality Disorders (ISSPD).

In this article we highlight the pivotal role of Dr. Theodore Millon in the founding of the International Society for the Study of Personality Disorders (ISSPD). This historical outline of Millon's contribution to the ISSPD also contains previously unpublished transcripts of his talks at ISSPD congresses based on transcripts from the first author's audio recordings throughout the years.

The quest for tailored treatments: a meta-discussion of six social cognitive therapies.

In this commentary on the 6 articles comprising this In Session issue on metacognition and mentalizing in the psychotherapeutic treatment of severe mental disorders, we strive to contextualize and bring together salient issues reflected in these articles. In the foreground of our discussion is the point that the commonalities of these and related social cognitive treatments far outweigh their differences. We attempt to pinpoint some of the more specific tailored treatment elements described by the authors and relate these to empirical findings and theoretical and practical problems. Among the key issues addressed in this commentary are conceptual fallacies, therapist transparency, personality disorder and self-harm in adolescence, therapeutic alliance, and a metacognitive-informed group psychotherapy practice for patients with avoidant personality disorder or alexithymia.

Mentalizing mediates the relationship between psychopathy and type of aggression in schizophrenia.

Convincing evidence demonstrates that psychopathy is associated with premeditated aggression. However, studies have failed to explain why this association exists and whether socio-cognitive functions, such as mentalizing, could explain the relation. This cross-sectional study investigates, in 108 patients with schizophrenia, the association of psychopathy and mentalizing abilities with premeditated and impulsive aggression and probes the nature of their influence on these specific aggression patterns. Patients' engagement in premeditated aggression was associated with diminishing mentalizing and increasing psychopathic tendencies. Moreover, mediation analyses reveal that the ability to attribute mental states to others mediates the relation between psychopathy and type of aggression. This mediation is facilitated by a specific mentalizing profile characterized by the presence of intact cognitive and deficient emotional mentalizing capacities. This study is the first to report a mediating effect of mentalizing on the relationship between psychopathy and type of aggression in schizophrenia. Implications of these results are discussed.

The role of co-morbid personality pathology in predicting self-reported aggression in patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Personality pathology affects behavioral patterns in patients with schizophrenia notwithstanding psychotic symptomatology. An investigation of the role of co-morbid personality pathology in the occurrence of aggression in schizophrenia is explored using both categorical and dimensional approaches to personality pathology. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study we evaluate, in 97 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, the effect of personality pathology on the occurrence of aggression in schizophrenia using both a categorical approach, as described in DSM-IV-TR Axis II, and a dimensional approach, as operationalized in the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ). We also employ mediation analyses to explore the extent to which dimensions within the DAPP mediate the relationship between co-morbid personality disorders and aggression. RESULTS: Personality pathology accounts for aggression in schizophrenia. Both the categorical and the dimensional approaches equally well account for the occurrence of aggression, with each model accounting for 60% of the variance. Interestingly, the mediation analysis reveals that the association between categorically defined personality pathology and aggression is substantially mediated by the higher-order-trait dissocial behavior of the DAPP-BQ, accounting for 50.6 % of the total effect size. CONCLUSION: Personality pathology can be a significant predictor of aggression in patients with schizophrenia. While both the categorical and the dimensional trait models of personality disorders equally explain the aggression data, much of the relationship between the categorically defined personality disorders and the occurrence of aggression in schizophrenia can be explained by the presence of dissocial behavior as operationalized in the DAPP-BQ dimensional model.

Subtypes of aggression in patients with schizophrenia: the role of personality disorders.

BACKGROUND: Research has repeatedly demonstrated that schizophrenia has a small but significant association with violence. It is further recognised that a subgroup of people with such links also have personality disorders, but the extent to which type of violence or aggression varies according to subgroup is less clear. AIM: This study aimed to investigate, among co-morbid cases, if the number or type of personality disorders predicts type of aggression. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 108 patients with schizophrenia were assessed for personality disorder, Axis-I diagnosis, verbal IQ, social functioning and type of aggression. RESULTS: Logistic regression revealed that the more personality disorders identified (Cluster B personality disorders compared with Clusters A and C) and anti-social personality disorder compared with other Cluster B disorders significantly predicted premeditated aggression. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that detailed personality assessment should be a routine part of comprehensive assessment of patients with schizophrenia. Improved knowledge of the presence and type of personality disorders may help detect and manage the risk of some types of aggression.

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).

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.

Screening for personality disorder in incarcerated adolescent boys: preliminary validation of an adolescent version of the standardised assessment of personality - abbreviated scale (SAPAS-AV).

BACKGROUND: Personality disorder (PD) is associated with significant functional impairment and an elevated risk of violent and suicidal behaviour. The prevalence of PD in populations of young offenders is likely to be high. However, because the assessment of PD is time-consuming, it is not routinely assessed in this population. A brief screen for the identification of young people who might warrant further detailed assessment of PD could be particularly valuable for clinicians and researchers working in juvenile justice settings. METHOD: We adapted a rapid screen for the identification of PD in adults (Standardised Assessment of Personality - Abbreviated Scale; SAPAS) for use with adolescents and then carried out a study of the reliability and validity of the adapted instrument in a sample of 80 adolescent boys in secure institutions. Participants were administered the screen and shortly after an established diagnostic interview for DSM-IV PDs. Nine days later the screen was readministered. RESULTS: A score of 3 or more on the screening interview correctly identified the presence of DSM-IV PD in 86% of participants, yielding a sensitivity and specificity of 0.87 and 0.86 respectively. Internal consistency was modest but comparable to the original instrument. 9-days test-retest reliability for the total score was excellent. Convergent validity correlations with the total number of PD criteria were large. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence of the validity, reliability, and usefulness of the screen in secure institutions for adolescent male offenders. It can be used in juvenile offender institutions with limited resources, as a brief, acceptable, staff-administered routine screen to identify individuals in need of further assessment of PD or by researchers conducting epidemiological surveys.

'Third wave' cognitive therapy versus mentalization-based therapy for major depressive disorder. A protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Most interventions for depression have shown small or no effects. 'Third wave' cognitive therapy and mentalization-based therapy have both gained some ground as treatments of psychological problems. No randomised trial has compared the effects of these two interventions for patients with major depression. METHODS/DESIGN: We plan a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. During two years we will include 84 consecutive adult participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The participants will be randomised to either 'third wave' cognitive therapy versus mentalization-based therapy. The primary outcome will be the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression at cessation of treatment at 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be the proportion of patients with remission, Symptom Checklist 90 Revised, Beck's Depression Inventory, and The World Health Organisation-Five Well-being Index 1999. DISCUSSION: Interventions for depression have until now shown relatively small effects. Our trial results will provide knowledge about the effects of two modern psychotherapeutic interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials: NCT01070134.