Clinical and psychosocial outcomes of borderline personality disorder in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: While there is a growing body of research on borderline personality disorder (BPD) in children and adolescents, controversy remains regarding the validity and diagnosis of the disorder prior to adulthood. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psych INFO and PubMed databases were systematically searched for articles pertaining to the clinical and psychosocial outcomes (i.e. predictive validity) of BPD first diagnosed in childhood or adolescence (i.e. prior to 19 years of age). All primary empirical studies were included in the review. A narrative synthesis of the data was completed. RESULTS: A total of 8200 abstracts were screened. Out of 214 full-text articles, 18 satisfied the predetermined inclusion criteria. Quality assessment indicated that most studies had high risk of bias in at least one study domain. Consistent with the adult literature, the diagnostic stability of BPD prior to the age of 19 years was low to moderate, and mean-level and rank-order stability, moderate to high. Individuals with BPD symptoms in childhood or adolescence had significant social, educational, work and financial impairment in later life. CONCLUSIONS: Studies indicate that borderline pathology prior to the age of 19 years is predictive of long-term deficits in functioning, and that a considerable proportion of individuals continue to manifest borderline symptoms up to 20 years later. These findings provide some support for the clinical utility of the BPD phenotype in younger populations, and suggest that an early intervention approach may be warranted. Further prospective studies are needed to delineate risk (and protective) factors pertinent to the chronicity of BPD across the lifespan.

How is affective instability defined and measured? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Affective instability (AI) is poorly defined but considered clinically important. The aim of this study was to examine definitions and measures of AI employed in clinical populations. METHOD: This study was a systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and Web of Science databases were searched. Also five journals were hand searched. Primary empirical studies involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before and after, and observational investigations were included. Studies were selected, data extracted and quality appraised. A narrative synthesis was completed. RESULTS: A total of 11 443 abstracts were screened and 37 studies selected for final analysis on the basis that they provided a definition and measure of AI. Numbers of definitions for each of the terms employed in included studies were: AI (n = 7), affective lability (n = 6), affective dysregulation (n = 1), emotional dysregulation (n = 4), emotion regulation (n = 2), emotional lability (n = 1), mood instability (n = 2), mood lability (n = 1) and mood swings (n = 1); however, these concepts showed considerable overlap in features. A total of 24 distinct measures were identified that could be categorized as primarily measuring one of four facets of AI (oscillation, intensity, ability to regulate and affect change triggered by environment) or as measuring general emotional regulation. CONCLUSIONS: A clearer definition of AI is required. We propose AI be defined as 'rapid oscillations of intense affect, with a difficulty in regulating these oscillations or their behavioural consequences'. No single measure comprehensively assesses AI and a combination of current measures is required for assessment. A new short measure of AI that is reliable and validated against external criteria is needed.