Should Borderline Personality Disorder Be Included in the Fourth Edition of the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders?
Jie Zhong,Freedom Leung
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00029330-200701010-00016
IF: 6.133
2007-01-01
Chinese Medical Journal
Abstract:Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disturbances in mood regulation, impulse control, self-image and interpersonal relationships.1 In the United States, the prevalence of BPD has been estimated at 1%-2% of the general population, 10% of psychiatric outpatients, and 20% of inpatients.2,3 According to the 4th text revision of diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR),1 about 75% of BPD patients are women. The BPD diagnosis has been associated with heightened risk (8.5% to 10.0% among BPD patients) for completed suicide, a rate almost 50 times higher than in the general population.4 In Europe and China, however, the DSM-BPD construct has not been uniformly accepted. Both the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)5 and the third Edition of the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD-3)6 create different diagnostic categories to describe patients with clinical profiles comparable to the DSM-BPD construct. In this paper, we compare the diagnostic criteria of BPD in DSM-IV-TR,1 emotional unstable personality disorder (EUPD) in ICD-10,5 impulsive personality disorder (IPD) in CCMD-3,6 and evaluate the empirical evidence related to each of these diagnostic categories. Finally, we discuss whether the diagnostic category of BPD should be included in the CCMD-4. BPD IN THE DSM-IV-TR The origin of the term "borderline" comes from the first description of this group of patients by Adolf Stern,7 who suggested this form of pathology fell on a "border" between psychosis and neurosis. However, this point of view was never accepted by mainstream psychiatry.8 The clinical definition of BPD that was eventually accepted into DSM-III9 was largely based on the work of Gunderson and Singer (1975).10 The diagnostic criteria of BPD in DSM-IV-TR1 have remained much the same, except for the addition of a criterion describing transient psychotic or dissociative feature (Table). According to the atheoretical and polythetic approach of the DSM system, each diagnostic symptom carries equal weight in its contribution to the diagnosis, and no necessary criterion is specified. A case definition is established if a patient fulfils any five out of nine symptoms.Table: Diagnostic criteria for EUPD in ICD-10-R, BPD in DSM-IV-TR and IPD in CCMD-3Since its introduction in DSM-III, BPD has attracted tremendous research attention in the past three decades. A computer search of three databases including PsycINFO, Medline, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for BPD yielded over 3000 studies on the topic, making it one of the most studied personality disorders. Research evidence supports that the DSM-BPD criteria set has good internal consistency and item-total correlations.11–13 Findings from factor analytic studies also support that the nine BPD symptoms form a unitary clinical construct.14,15 These findings indicate that the nine BPD symptoms belong together and form a coherent clinical construct. The neurobiological functioning of BPD patients has also attracted a lot of research attention in recent years. Many researchers argue that neurobiological predispositions for mood and impulse dysregulation may represent necessary traits underlying the development of BPD.16–20 Extensive empirical evidence also documents that adverse upbringing experiences such as abuse, neglect, and inadequate parenting21,22 may exacerbate the neurobiological vulnerabilities for mood and impulse dysregulation and produce the ultimate cluster of behaviors we call BPD.16,17 Structural and functional neuroimaging studies revealed abnormalities in various brain regions that seem to mediate important aspects of BPD symptomatology, particularly those related to mood and impulse dysregulation tendencies. Marked impulsivity trait observed among BPD patients has been found to be associated with dysfunctional serotonergic neurotransmission23 and a reduction of frontal and orbitofrontal lobe volumes.24,25 Mood dysregulation has been found to be associated with hyperreactivity of the amygdale26 and weakening of prefrontal and hippocampal inhibitory control.27 Longitudinal research on the development of BPD symptoms indicate that they usually first appear during adolescence, peak during young adulthood, and decline in middle age.28 Paris28 (2003) argued that this long-term improvement is most likely a naturalistic outcome, rather than a treatment effect. Such normal changes with age could reflect the effects of brain maturation or social learning, and are probably one of the main mechanisms of recovery in BPD. The studies about treatment outcomes in the past decades reveal that two structured psychotherapeutic programs are effective for treating BPD. Among the two, the dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), which focuses on teaching patients with specific skills to tolerate emotional distress, to regulate emotion, and to be more effective in interpersonal functioning, has received the most empirical support.29,30 A psychodynamic long-term partial hospital program has also been shown to be effective in a controlled study.31 Results of placebo- controlled trials suggest that pharmacotherapy for BPD could be used to target certain aspects, such as cognitive-perceptual symptoms, emotional dysregulation, or impulsive-behavioral dyscontrol.32 Neuroleptics have been found in some studies to be effective against cognitive-perceptual symptoms.33 Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been reported to be effective in helping BPD patients to regulate their mood symptoms.34 Omega-3 fatty acids have also been found to be effective as mood stabilizers for BPD patients.35 Overall, research evidence indicates that the DSM-BPD criteria set represents a valid psychiatric syndrome with a well-defined clinical picture, well-documented neurobiological and psychosocial correlates and developmental courses.17,28 Evidence based effective treatments for BPD have also been documented.30,31 Many researchers agreed that while the term "BPD" may be a misnomer, it represents a diagnostic category of high clinical utility by virtue of the rich empirical information concerning its clinical presentation, etiology, course of development, and treatment response.8 PRELIMINARY SUPPORT FOR THE BPD CONSTRUCT IN CHINA Systematic studies on BPD are scarce in China. The available studies, however, provide preliminary empirical support to the construct validity and clinical utility of the BPD diagnosis among Chinese patients in China. For example, Yang et al36 reported good internal consistency of the DSM-IV BPD criteria set as measured by the PDQ4+ among Chinese psychiatric patients in China. Using the Chinese Personality Disorder Screening Inventory, Leung et al37 also reported good internal consistency for the DSM-IV BPD criteria set among Chinese female psychiatric patients.37 Moreover, when compared to the non-BPD group, the BPD patients displayed a personality profile characterized by a pattern of labile and negative mood, impulsive cognitive style, poor sense of self, and problematic interpersonal relationships as assessed by the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory,37 an indigenous measure of general personality features. Other psychometric studies on different measures of personality disorders among Chinese psychiatric patients and Chinese college students also reported similar findings.38,39 Together, these preliminary findings suggest that BPD is a valid clinical diagnostic category among the Chinese population and deserves more research attention. EUPD IN ICD-10-R The construct of BPD met strong resistance among clinicians when it was first introduced in Europe during the 1980s.8 The committee of the ICD-10 originally did not consider BPD as a valid diagnostic category.5 Mounting empirical evidence supporting BPD as a valid and useful clinical diagnostic category has eventually convinced the ICD-10 committee to include BPD as a subtype of emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) in its nomenclature. Currently, the EUPD in ICD-10 is divided into two subtypes: the EUPD-impulsive type and the EUPD-borderline type (Table). The five diagnostic criteria for the EUPD-impulsive type include two symptoms related to impulsive aggression (quarrelsome behavior and conflict with others when impulsive acts are thwarted; liability to outbursts of anger or violence), two symptoms related to general impulsivity (act unexpectedly and without consideration of the consequences, difficulty in maintaining course of action that offers no immediate reward), and one symptom related to unstable and capricious mood (Table). A person diagnosed as having EUPD-impulsive type must display quarrelsome behavior with others plus at least two other symptoms. The theoretical or empirical justification behind the requirement of this necessary criterion for diagnosing EUPD-impulsive type is not clear. A computer search of all major databases for research on EUPD-impulsive type indicates that the construct validity, clinical utility, and the phenomenology of this diagnostic category have in fact never been subject to systematic empirical evaluation. This diagnostic category appears to be based mostly on clinical opinions rather than empirical evidence. ICD-10 lists five diagnostic criteria for borderline type (Table). All the five criteria are adopted from the DSM-BPD criteria set: uncertainty about self-image, intense and unstable relationships, fear of abandonment, recurrent acts of self-harm, and chronic feelings of emptiness. A EUPD-BPD patient must display at least three EUPD-impulsive symptoms plus any two of the five BPD symptoms. Comparison of the diagnostic criteria for BPD in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 reveals eight common symptoms: fear of abandonment (DSM criterion 1; ICD criterion 8), intense and unstable relationships (DSM criterion 2; ICD criterion 7), uncertainty about self-image (DSM criterion 3; ICD criterion 6), general impulsivity (DSM criterion 4; ICD criterion 1 and 4), recurrent threats of self-harm (DSM criterion 5; ICD criterion 9), affective instability (DSM criterion 6; ICD criterion 5), chronic feeling of emptiness (DSM criterion 7; ICD criterion 10), impulsive aggression (DSM criterion 8; ICD criteria 2 and 3). There are, however, two major differences between the two systems in diagnosing BPD. First, according to the ICD-10-R, a patient must display (1) at least three EUPD-impulsive type symptoms plus (2) two or more of the five BPD symptoms in order to be diagnosed as EUPD-borderline type. In other words, some kinds of impulsivity is a necessary condition for diagnosing EUPD-borderline type. Second, the DSM system has introduced "transient, stress- related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms" (criterion 9) as one of the diagnostic symptoms for BPD since the DSM-IV, an item that is missing in ICD-10-R. Based on these differences in diagnostic criteria, BPD patients in Europe and the US may differ in at least two significant ways. First, while all EUPD-borderline patients must show some traits of impulsivity, some DSM-BPD patients may display no impulsive trait. Second, while EUPD- borderline patients will not display transient psychotic symptoms, some DSM-BPD patients, probably the most disturbed subgroup, may display transient psychotic features. There is a groundswell of dissatisfaction with the name borderline itself. Some researchers argued that the term EUPD is more preferable than BPD as it frees the construct from its previous psychoanalytic theoretical baggage, and comes closer to capturing the crucial dimensions of BPD, namely, its affective instability and impulsivity.8,40 However, a computer search of all major databases for empirical studies on EUPD indicated that both the construct validity and clinical phenomenology of EUPD have not really been subject to empirical evaluation. At this moment, it is not clear which diagnostic system provides a better description of this clinical syndrome that we refer to as borderline. Nevertheless, clinicians in both Europe and the US seem to agree that there is a group of rather disturbed psychiatric patients who display a highly comparable clinical profile that deserve serious clinical attention. IPD IN CCMD-3 The introduction of the BPD construct also met strong resistance in China. It was argued that the BPD diagnosis is a vague construct that lacks precise boundaries, and some of its diagnostic features (e.g., fear of abandonment, chronic feelings of emptiness) are not appropriate culturally when used in China.41 As a result, the CCMD-3 committee has adopted the diagnostic category of impulsive personality disorder (IPD) rather than BPD in its official nomenclature.6 CCMD-3 lists 10 diagnostic symptoms for IPD.6 A patient diagnosed as having IPD must display "affective outbursts" and "marked impulsive behavior", plus at least three out of eight other symptoms (Table). Among the other eight symptoms, the first five are basically adopted from the EUPD-impulsive type symptoms: (1) unpredictable and capricious mood (EUPD criterion 5), (2) liability to outbursts of anger and violence (EUPD criterion 3), (3) inability to plan ahead or foresee likely future events and circumstances (highly comparable to EUPD criterion 1), (4) difficulty in maintaining any course of action that offers no immediate reward (EUPD criterion 4), and (5) quarrelsome behavior with others (EUPD criterion 2). The other three symptoms include (6) stormy and unstable interpersonal relationships (EUPD criterion 7), (7) unstable self-image (EUPD criterion 6), and (8) frequent deliberate self-harm (EUPD criterion 9), all adopted from the EUPD-borderline type symptoms, with the deletion of items concerning fear of abandonment and chronic feelings of emptiness. Judging from its diagnostic criteria, the CCMD-IPD construct is basically a hybrid of both the EUPD-IPD and EUPD-borderline symptoms. In that case, CCMD-IPD patients bear closer resemblance in clinical profile to the EUPD-borderline type than EUPD-IPD type patients. A computer search for empirical studies on CCMD-IPD revealed that the construct validity and clinical phenomenology of this diagnostic category have in fact never been subject to any systematic empirical evaluation. At this stage, it is safe to conclude that the diagnostic category of CCMD-IPD is based mostly on clinical opinions rather than empirical evidence. Systematic empirical research evaluating the construct validity and clinical phenomenology of IPD is clearly needed. SUMMARY Clinicians in the United States, Europe, and China observe a comparable clinical syndrome that is characterized by a pervasive pattern of mood and impulse control problems. Different conceptualization of this syndrome results in different diagnostic rules and divergent diagnostic categories: DSM-BPD, ICD-EUPD, and CCMD-IPD. This paper compares the characteristics of these diagnostic categories and evaluates the empirical evidence related to each of these clinical constructs. Among these diagnostic categories, DSM-BPD has the strongest empirical foundation. Research evidence indicates that the DSM-BPD criteria set represents a valid psychiatric diagnosis with a well-defined clinical picture, well-documented neurobiological and psychosocial correlates, and well-conceptualized etiological models.8,17,42,43 Evidence based effective treatments for BPD have also been documented.29–34 Many clinicians agreed that while the term "BPD" may be a misnomer, but it represents a diagnostic category of high clinical utility by virtue of the rich empirical information concerning its clinical presentation, etiology, course of development, and treatment response.8,17,40 As a result, ICD-10 has also included the borderline construct as a subtype of the EUPD diagnostic category in its nomenclature.5 The BPD diagnosis met strong resistance among clinicians in China. The committee of CCMD-3 rejected BPD as a valid clinical construct. Instead, CCMD-3 has adopted the diagnostic category of IPD, which is basically a hybrid of both the EUPD-IPD and EUPD-BPD type symptoms from the ICD-10. The rejection of BPD and the inclusion of IPD in CCMD-3 raise several important questions. First, decision to add or drop a diagnostic category should be based on solid empirical evidence, not pure clinical opinions. Is IPD an empirically valid clinical construct? Computer search for empirical studies related to IPD, either as defined by ICD-10 or by CCMD-3, indicated that its construct validity, clinical utility, epidemiology, etiology, or treatment outcomes have in fact never been subjected to systematic empirical evaluation. At this moment, it is safe to conclude that the decision to include IPD in both ICD-10 and CCMD-3 was based largely on clinical opinions rather than solid empirical evidence. Systematic research examining the construct validity and clinical phenomenology of IPD is undoubtedly needed. Second, since CCMD-3 does not contain the BPD diagnosis, most clinicians and researchers in China are not familiar with this clinical construct. Can we then assume that there are no BPD patients in China? Chinese clinicians reported cases of BPD from time to time in clinical journals.44 Preliminary empirical studies examining the DSM-BPD criteria set also demonstrated good construct validity among Chinese psychiatric patients in China.36–39 Taken together, these observations suggest that BPD patients do exist in China and systematic research to study the characteristics of this special population is clearly needed. Third, Luo (2005) argued that even though CCMD-3 does not have the BPD diagnosis, it contains a significant number of diagnostic symptoms for BPD.44 Comparison of the diagnostic criteria between CCMD-IPD and DSM-BPD indicates that six of the nine DSM-BPD diagnostic features (with the exception of feelings of chronic emptiness, fear of abandonment, and transient psychotic symptoms) are found in the CCMD-IPD diagnosis. Can we then assume that the CCMD-IPD diagnosis is able to capture most of those patients who might otherwise be diagnosed as BPD? This is an extremely important clinical question because the prevalence of BPD has been estimated to be at 1%-2% of the general population in the West.2,3 If this prevalence figure is generalizable to China, a country with 1.3 billion people, it means 13 to 26 million Chinese could be suffering from BPD. However, CCMD-3 states that over sixty percent of the IPD patients are males.6 DSM-IV-TR, on the other hand, indicates that the majority of BPD patients (70 to 75 percent) are females.8 These reverse sex ratios for IPD and BPD suggest that a significant number of female BPD patients in China might have never been properly diagnosed and treated under the current diagnostic system. Apparently, whatever the problems with the BPD diagnosis, there are also problems with not diagnosing this disorder. Thus, should the construct of BPD be introduced in CCMD-4? The BPD construct has received sufficient empirical support, and has been accepted as valid diagnosis in both ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR. Clinical professionals in China need to benefit from the large empirical literature bearing on this complex clinical problem. Moreover, globalization means we have to provide a worldwide common language so that clinicians from different countries can learn from each other. Based on these considerations, we strongly argue for the inclusion of the BPD construct in CCMD-4, perhaps by following the ICD-10 EUPD construct, with its IPD and BPD subtypes. Future research on BPD in China should focus on the following directions: (1) the epidemiological investigation of EUPD should be conducted in Chinese mainland; noteworthy is the studies focused on the difference between BPD and IPD in Chinese psychiatric patients; (2) the cross-cultural comparison studies on the construct of BPD should also be facilitated; (3) Chinese women have higher suicide rate than man, and especially the impulsive suicidal behavior was common among young rural females.45 Considering the suicide rate among BPD patients is fifty times higher than normal group,4 the relationship between BPD and higher suicide rate in young rural woman should also be investigated.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
-
The Need to Establish Diagnostic Criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder in China.
Lanlan Wang,Zeping Xiao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2012.04.006
2012-01-01
Abstract:Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a condition that usually starts in early adulthood which is characterized by fluctuating emotions, impulsive self-harm, unstable self-identity, and tense interpersonal relationships.[1] It has a high prevalence, is associated with severe disability, and often leads to death by suicide.[2] It is currently an important area of research both in psychiatry and in clinical psychology. Gunderson[3] has described the evolution of the BPD diagnosis as follows: prior to 1970 a theory of borderline personality was developed based on psychoanalytic concepts; from 1970 to 1980 there was a gradual identification of a borderline syndrome and of the general types of symptoms that should be present to make the diagnosis; from 1980 to 1990 BPD became an independent diagnosis and was included in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM); from 1990 to 2000 intensive research focused on the pathological mechanisms associated with BPD and on the psychological treatments for managing BPD, as represented by the work on Dialectical Behavior Therapy of Linehan and the on mentalization therapy of Fonagy; from 2000 onwards an increasing body of basic research and clinical research has shown that BPD is a disease of the brain that can have a favorable prognosis. The current plans for the upcoming 5th edition of the DSM[4] will make major changes to the conceptualization of personality disorders, categorizing them into six types, one of which will be BPD. The current version of the Chinese classification of mental disorders (CCMD-3)[5] does not include BPD. Research on this topic in China has, however, been gradually increasing, particularly over the last 5 years. There are 183 papers about BPD listed in the Chinese database for articles in medical journals (CNKI), 139 (76%) of which were published from 2004 onwards and 102 (56%) of which were published from 2007 onwards. Many of these papers confirm the presence of BPD as a clinical entity in China and recommend the inclusion of this diagnosis in the Chinese diagnostic system.[6]–[12] In China there are a variety of clinical presentations of BPD and in clinical settings it is frequently co-morbid with other mental disorders,[12] making the identification of the condition difficult. Disagreements and uncertainty about the diagnostic criteria that should be adopted for the BPD diagnosis in China also undermine attempts to improve psychiatrists' recognition of the disorder.[13] These patients are often incorrectly diagnosed (as schizophrenia, bipolar mood disorder, neurosis, etc.), have multiple changing diagnoses over time, or are classified as suffering from an ‘indefinite’ mental illness. Moreover, the diagnosis and management of co-morbid mental disorders in inpatient and outpatient settings is made much more difficult because of the presence of BPD. It is important for Chinese professionals to select an appropriate diagnostic instrument for making the BPD diagnosis and to increase the ability of clinicians to reliably make the diagnosis. One promising candidate instrument is the revised version of the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R),[15] a semi-structured diagnostic instrument currently used in western countries for diagnosing BPD. But there may need to be revisions to the instrument to address specific cultural aspects of the condition in China and to help distinguish it from other mental disorders. Progress in the diagnostic identification of BPD in China would help us improve our understanding of the condition and help to increase the effectiveness of methods for decreasing the distress the condition causes patients, family members and the community at large. To achieve this we make the following recommendations: Highlight the importance of this diagnosis in the training of clinicians and in clinical practice so patients can receive timely and appropriate care, patient-clinician conflicts can be reduced and unnecessary suicides can be prevented. Change the label for the disorder. The term ‘borderline’ in the BPD label makes it easy to confuse the disorder with ‘borderline mental disorder’ or ‘borderline psychosis’, non-specific labels previously used to describe individuals who do not clearly meet criteria for any specific diagnosis. After the adoption of the third edition of the DSM, ‘borderline psychosis’ was subdivided into ‘schizotypal personality disorder’ and ‘borderline personality disorder’. In the 10th edition of the international classification of diseases (ICD-10),[16] there is no ‘schizotypal personality disorder’ (schizotypal disorder is listed as a separate disorder in the psychosis chapter) and ‘borderline’ is a subtype of ‘Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder’. We believe the ICD label of ‘Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder’ is preferable to the DSM label of ‘Borderline Personality Disorder’ because it minimizes confusion, emphasizes the centrality of emotional instability in the condition, and reduces patient stigma. There needs to be additional diagnostic criteria that capture the culture-specific characteristics of the condition in China. In China clinicians have no experience in the use of standardized, systematic treatment protocols for BPD; they remain uncertain about how to effectively integrate pharmacological treatment and psychotherapy with these patients. This is a reflection of the difficulty psychiatry in China (and elsewhere) has had in transitioning from a purely biological model to a bio-psycho-social model. Standardized treatment guidelines that integrated these two components of treatment need to be developed and promulgated among Chinese clinicians.
-
Diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder in China: Current Status and Future Directions.
Jie Zhong,Freedom Leung
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-009-0011-3
2009-01-01
Current Psychiatry Reports
Abstract:This paper reviews the current status and future directions of borderline personality disorder (BPD) research in China. Although the committee of the third version of the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD-3) rejected BPD as a valid diagnostic category and instead adopted the term impulsive personality disorder (IPD), our literature review on personality disorders from 1979 to 2008 in China indicated that BPD was the most popular research topic among researchers and clinicians. Available empiric evidence on BPD in China provided preliminary support for the construct validity and clinical utility of BPD in clinical and nonclinical Chinese samples. Future studies in the following areas are suggested: 1) developing reliable assessment instruments for measuring BPD pathology in China, 2) comparing the construct validity and phenomenology of CCMD IPD and DSM BPD among Chinese patients, 3) examining potential cultural differences in symptom expression of BPD pathology among the Chinese, and 4) exploring indigenous and imported methods for treating BPD patients in China.
-
Borderline personality disorder: a comprehensive review of diagnosis and clinical presentation, etiology, treatment, and current controversies
Falk Leichsenring,Peter Fonagy,Nikolas Heim,Otto F. Kernberg,Frank Leweke,Patrick Luyten,Simone Salzer,Carsten Spitzer,Christiane Steinert
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21156
2024-01-18
World Psychiatry
Abstract:Borderline personality disorder (BPD) was introduced in the DSM‐III in 1980. From the DSM‐III to the DSM‐5, no major changes have occurred in its defining criteria. The disorder is characterized by instability of self‐image, interpersonal relationships and affects. Further symptoms include impulsivity, intense anger, feelings of emptiness, strong abandonment fears, suicidal or self‐mutilation behavior, and transient stress‐related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms. There is evidence that BPD can be reliably diagnosed and differentiated from other mental disorders by semi‐structured interviews. The disorder is associated with considerable functional impairment, intensive treatment utilization, and high societal costs. The risk of self‐mutilation and suicide is high. In the general adult population, the lifetime prevalence of BPD has been reported to be from 0.7 to 2.7%, while its prevalence is about 12% in outpatient and 22% in inpatient psychiatric services. BPD is significantly associated with other mental disorders, including depressive disorders, substance use disorders, post‐traumatic stress disorder, attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, bulimia nervosa, and other personality disorders. There is convincing evidence to suggest that the interaction between genetic factors and adverse childhood experiences plays a central role in the etiology of BPD. In spite of considerable research, the neurobiological underpinnings of the disorder remain to be clarified. Psychotherapy is the treatment of choice for BPD. Various approaches have been empirically supported in randomized controlled trials, including dialectical behavior therapy, mentalization‐based therapy, transference‐focused therapy, and schema therapy. No approach has proved to be superior to others. Compared to treatment as usual, psychotherapy has proved to be more efficacious, with effect sizes between 0.50 and 0.65 with regard to core BPD symptom severity. However, almost half of the patients do not respond sufficiently to psychotherapy, and further research in this area is warranted. It is not clear whether some patients may benefit more from one psychotherapeutic approach than from others. No evidence is available consistently showing that any psychoactive medication is efficacious for the core features of BPD. For discrete and severe comorbid anxiety or depressive symptoms or psychotic‐like features, pharmacotherapy may be useful. Early diagnosis and treatment of BPD can reduce individual suffering and societal costs. However, more high‐quality studies are required, in both adolescents and adults. This review provides a comprehensive update of the BPD diagnosis and clinical characterization, risk factors, neurobiology, cognition, and management. It also discusses the current controversies concerning the disorder, and highlights the areas in which further research is needed.
psychiatry
-
Understanding the Pathogenesis of Borderline Personality Disorder Using the Intergenerational Brain-and-Experience Model
YK Freedom,Jie ZHONG
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-3611.2006.03.015
2006-01-01
Abstract:Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is very common among psychiatric patients in the West. The CCMD-3 (Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders, Version three), however, does not contain the BPD diagnosis, and few systematic studies have been conducted to explore the construct validity and prevalence of BPD in China. In this review, we first review the empirical evidence related to BPD. Moreover, an Intergenerational Brain-and-Experience Model is proposed to help clinicians to understand the pathogenesis of BPD. Future directions of BPD research in China are also discussed.
-
Distribution of self-reported borderline personality disorder traits symptoms in a large-scale clinical population
Yong Lin,ZiLei Guo,Yong Zhou,YanYan Wei,LiHua Xu,XiaoChen Tang,Zixuan Wang,YeGang Hu,JiJun Wang,Yi Mei,HaiSu Wu,YanLi Luo,TianHong Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1424966
IF: 4.7
2024-06-25
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Abstract:Introduction: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) traits play a crucial role in the prognosis of psychiatric disorders, as well as in assessing risks associated with negativity and impulsivity. However, there is a lack of data regarding the distribution characteristics of BPD traits and symptoms within clinical populations. Methods: A total of 3015 participants (1321 males, 1694 females) were consecutively sampled from outpatients at the psychiatric and psycho-counseling clinics at the Shanghai Mental Health Center. BPD symptoms were assessed using a self-reported personality diagnostic questionnaire. Having BPD traits is defined as having five or more positive items in self-reported BPD characteristics. Participants were stratified into male and female groups, age groups, and diagnostic groups (schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders). Exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis was conducted. Three factors were identified: "F1: Affective Instability and Impulsivity", "F2: Interpersonal Unstable and Extreme Reactions", and "F3: Identity Disturbance". Results: Among 3015 participants, 45.9% of the patients self-reported BPD traits. Comparing of male and female patients, there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence rate of BPD traits ( χ 2 = 1.835, p =0.176). However, in terms of symptoms, female patients reported more symptoms than male patients. Female patients also exhibited more pronounced features on F2 compared to male patients ( t =-1.972, p =0.049). There is a general decrease in BPD traits, symptoms, and factors with increasing age. Specifically, the proportion of positive BPD traits is approximately halved before the age of 30 and decreases to around one-third after the age of 30. BPD traits were most common in the Mood Disorders group at 55.7%, followed by the Anxiety Disorders group at 44.4%, and Schizophrenia group at 41.5% ( χ 2 = 38.084, p <0.001). Discussion: Our study revealed the pervasive presence of BPD traits and symptoms among psychiatric outpatients, exhibiting distinctive distributions across gender, age, and diagnostic categories. These findings emphasize the significance of identifying and addressing BPD pathology in the clinical care of psychiatric outpatients.
psychiatry
-
Frequency of Borderline Personality Disorder among Psychiatric Outpatients in Shanghai
Lanlan Wang,Colin A. Ross,Tianhong Zhang,Yunfei Dai,Haiyin Zhang,Mingyi Tao,Jianying Qin,Jue Chen,Yanling He,Mingyuan Zhang,Zeping Xiao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.3.393
2012-01-01
Journal of Personality Disorders
Abstract:The objective of this study was to investigate the frequency, clinical characteristics, and comorbidity of borderline personality disorder (BPD) among psychiatric outpatients in two clinics at Shanghai Mental Health Center. A cross-sectional investigation was conducted. From 3,075 outpatients screened using the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-IV+, 2,284 patients positive for a personality disorder were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders. The frequency of BPD among the psychiatric outpatients was 5.8%, with a frequency of 3.5% among males and 7.5% among females (p < .01). BPD was found to have extensive comorbidity with Axis I and II disorders. This study proves that BPD does occur in China. The detected frequency among outpatients is lower than that reported in North America.
-
Reliability and Validity of a Chinese Version of the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines-Revised.
Lanlan Wang,Chenmei Yuan,Jianying Qiu,John Gunderson,Min Zhang,Kaida Jiang,Freedom Leung,Jie Zhong,Zeping Xiao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/appy.12111
2013-01-01
Abstract:INTRODUCTION:Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is the most studied of the axis II disorders. One of the most widely used diagnostic instruments is the Diagnostic Interview for Borderline Patients-Revised (DIB-R). The aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of DIB-R for use in the Chinese culture.METHODS:The reliability and validity of the DIB-R Chinese version were assessed in a sample of 236 outpatients with a probable BPD diagnosis. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (SCID-II) was used as a standard. Test-retest reliability was tested six months later with 20 patients, and inter-rater reliability was tested on 32 patients.RESULTS:The Chinese version of the DIB-R showed good internal global consistency (Cronbach's α of 0.916), good test-retest reliability (Pearson correlation of 0.704), good inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.892 and kappa of 0.861). When compared with the DSM-IV diagnosis as measured by the SCID-II, the DIB-R showed relatively good sensitivity (0.768) and specificity (0.891) at the cutoff of 7, moderate diagnostic convergence (kappa of 0.631), as well as good discriminating validity.DISCUSSION:The Chinese version of the DIB-R has good psychometric properties, which renders it a valuable method for examining the presence, the severity, and component phenotypes of BPD in Chinese samples.
-
Systematically Informed Literature Review: What is the Prevalence of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in Adolescents, 13-17, using DSM-5 Criteria?
S. Abdullah
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.472
2024-08-30
European Psychiatry
Abstract:Introduction In child & adolescent mental health settings, borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a dominant and substantial condition with high occurrence rates seen in community, crisis, and in-patient settings. Previously because of multiple concerns, BPD diagnosis in adolescents was considered questionable and was perceived to be invalid. However, in light of the evidence, recent guidelines and diagnostic manuals affirm the diagnosis in the under-18 population. Objectives Given its existence in adolescents and that DSM-5 (from 2013) allows diagnosing BPD in adolescents, a study was conducted in 2019 to explore what current literature had to say about its prevalence. Methods To answer this, a systematically informed literature review tried to look at the evidence. The hypothesis was that not many clinicians or researchers are aware of or using the opportunity to diagnose and thus manage BPD in adolescents, i.e., early in the course of this illness. Four databases were searched- PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Psycinfo- with the following inclusion & exclusion criteria: 1. Age: Adolescents (13-17). 2. BPD (disorder not traits or features). 3. Language – English, not just the abstract in English. 4. Time limit & diagnostic criteria (2013 onwards, DSM-5). 5. Full length articles not s alone. 6. No geographical limit. 7. Contacted academics personally for additional data. Following search terms were used: Borderline Personality Disorder, BPD, EUPD, Emotionally Unstable Personality disorder, DSM V, DSM 5, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5, DSM-5, Prevalence, Rate. Results All searches yielded 525 results. Other sources didn't identify any other records to be included. Out of these 525 results, 74 were duplicates. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied on the remaining resources. Of the remaining records, 133 were in language other than English, and thus, were excluded. Remaining 318 articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 196 had used diagnostic criteria or rating scales based on previous diagnostic criteria, and thus were excluded. Furthermore, 41 articles had focused on a totally other clinical question than ours. 79 articles had the wrong age range as per our diagnostic criteria. Thus, the total number of articles which met inclusion and exclusion criteria was 02. The results showed higher rates of BPD in adolescents, especially in those exposed to online sexual solicitation (OSS) (355 vs 13%) and in females (80% of cases). Image: Conclusions Despite the research and diagnostic allowance, there still seems to be reluctance among clinicians to diagnose BPD in adolescents. We advise consideration of BPD in adolescents if clinical picture indicates and application of the relevant criteria so patients can get appropriate treatment and support that they need. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
psychiatry
-
Specific Type of Childhood Trauma and Borderline Personality Disorder in Chinese Patients
Yanru Wu,Yuchen Zheng,Jijun Wang,Tianhong Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.936739
IF: 4.7
2022-01-01
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Abstract:Background Childhood maltreatment (CM) is a known risk factor for the development of mental disorders. An extensive body of literature about CM and mental health has been developed in wealthy countries, but information about this connection is lacking in developing countries including China. Aims To explore the possible relationship between specific types of CM and borderline personality disorder (BPD) in patients with mental disorders in China. Methods A survey was conducted in 2006, involving over 3,402 Chinese individuals aged 18–60 years who were randomly selected from the outpatients in the Shanghai Mental Health Center. The patients were screened with the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire and CM was assessed using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. The final sample comprised 178 patients with BPD, 178 patients with other personality disorders (PDs), and 178 patients without PDs. Results In Chinese patients, compared to other PDs, patients with BPDs are more likely to have experienced CM. Emotional maltreatment (emotional abuse and neglect) was the strongest predictor of BPD. Female gender and sexual abuse are significant predictors of the self-harm/suicidal risk of BPD patients. Conclusion This is a pioneering study conducted on a large set of Chinese clinical samples with paired controls to establish and compare the associations between specific CM and BPD. Further studies in this field are necessary to elucidate the mechanism of how various types of childhood trauma have influenced PDs.
-
A survey of the comorbidity of borderline personality disorder among psychiatric outpatients at Shanghai Mental Health Center
Wang Lanlan,Zhang Tianhong,Xiao Zeping
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2007.03.003
2007-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To survey on the comorbidity of borderline personality disorder(BPD) with other Axis I and II disorders。Methods: A cross-sectional investigation on the comorbidity of borderline personality disorder was conducted from May 2006 to Nov 2006 at Shanghai Mental Health Center in China. 3402 qualified subjects were randomly sampled. The Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+( PDQ-4+) was used to screen the subjects. The subjects identified with positive(PDQ-4+≥28) were assessed by psychiatrists who used a structured clinical interview (SCID-Ⅱ) based on the Fourth Edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-Ⅳ) . Results:1. 178 patients were diagnosed borderline personality disorder. 2. BPD often co-occurred with other personality disorders, among which the most common was depressive personality, the rate was 35.4%. 3. Among the Axis I disorders, mood disorder is the most universal disorder co-occuring with BPD, and the rate was 46.1%. Conclusion:There was extensive comorbidity of BPD with other Axis I disorders, as well as Axis II disorders.
-
Borderline personality disorder diagnosis in a new key
Abby L Mulay,Mark H Waugh,J Parks Fillauer,Donna S Bender,Anthony Bram,Nicole M Cain,Eve Caligor,Miriam K Forbes,Laurel B Goodrich,Jan H Kamphuis,Jared W Keeley,Robert F Krueger,John E Kurtz,Peter Jacobsson,Katie C Lewis,Gina M P Rossi,Jeremy M Ridenour,Michael Roche,Martin Sellbom,Carla Sharp,Andrew E Skodol
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-019-0116-1
2019-12-02
Abstract:Background: Conceptualizations of personality disorders (PD) are increasingly moving towards dimensional approaches. The definition and assessment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in regard to changes in nosology are of great importance to theory and practice as well as consumers. We studied empirical connections between the traditional DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BPD and Criteria A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Method: Raters of varied professional backgrounds possessing substantial knowledge of PDs (N = 20) characterized BPD criteria with the four domains of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and 25 pathological personality trait facets. Mean AMPD values of each BPD criterion were used to support a nosological cross-walk of the individual BPD criteria and study various combinations of BPD criteria in their AMPD translation. The grand mean AMPD profile generated from the experts was compared to published BPD prototypes that used AMPD trait ratings and the DSM-5-III hybrid categorical-dimensional algorithm for BPD. Divergent comparisons with DSM-5-III algorithms for other PDs and other published PD prototypes were also examined. Results: Inter-rater reliability analyses showed generally robust agreement. The AMPD profile for BPD criteria rated by individual BPD criteria was not isomorphic with whole-person ratings of BPD, although they were highly correlated. Various AMPD profiles for BPD were generated from theoretically relevant but differing configurations of BPD criteria. These AMPD profiles were highly correlated and showed meaningful divergence from non-BPD DSM-5-III algorithms and other PD prototypes. Conclusions: Results show that traditional DSM BPD diagnosis reflects a common core of PD severity, largely composed of LPFS and the pathological traits of anxiousness, depressively, emotional lability, and impulsivity. Results confirm the traditional DSM criterion-based BPD diagnosis can be reliably cross-walked with the full AMPD scheme, and both approaches share substantial construct overlap. This relative equivalence suggests the vast clinical and research literatures associated with BPD may be brought forward with DSM-5-III diagnosis of BPD.
-
Relationship between personality disorder functioning styles and the emotional states in bipolar I and II disorders.
Jiashu Yao,You Xu,Yanhua Qin,Jing Liu,Yuedi Shen,Wei Wang,Wei Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117353
IF: 3.7
2015-01-01
PLoS ONE
Abstract:BACKGROUND:Bipolar disorder types I (BD I) and II (BD II) behave differently in clinical manifestations, normal personality traits, responses to pharmacotherapies, biochemical backgrounds and neuroimaging activations. How the varied emotional states of BD I and II are related to the comorbid personality disorders remains to be settled.
METHODS:We therefore administered the Plutchick - van Praag Depression Inventory (PVP), the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ), the Hypomanic Checklist-32 (HCL-32), and the Parker Personality Measure (PERM) in 37 patients with BD I, 34 BD II, and in 76 healthy volunteers.
RESULTS:Compared to the healthy volunteers, patients with BD I and II scored higher on some PERM styles, PVP, MDQ and HCL-32 scales. In BD I, the PERM Borderline style predicted the PVP scale; and Antisocial predicted HCL-32. In BD II, Borderline, Dependent, Paranoid (-) and Schizoid (-) predicted PVP; Borderline predicted MDQ; Passive-Aggressive and Schizoid (-) predicted HCL-32. In controls, Borderline and Narcissistic (-) predicted PVP; Borderline and Dependent (-) predicted MDQ.
CONCLUSION:Besides confirming the different predictability of the 11 functioning styles of personality disorder to BD I and II, we found that the prediction was more common in BD II, which might underlie its higher risk of suicide and poorer treatment outcome.
-
Prevalence of personality disorders using two diagnostic systems in psychiatric outpatients in Shanghai, China: a comparison of uni-axial and multi-axial formulation
Tianhong Zhang,Lanlan Wang,Mary-Jo D. Good,Byron J. Good,Annabelle Chow,Yunfei Dai,Junhan Yu,Haiyin Zhang,Zeping Xiao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-011-0445-x
2011-01-01
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Abstract:Objective To compare multi-axial (DSM-IV) with uni-axial diagnostic system (CCMD-3, Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders) as diagnostic methods to determine the prevalence of personality disorders (PDs) in Chinese psychiatric outpatients. Method 3,075 outpatients were randomly sampled from clinical settings in China. CCMD-3 PDs were evaluated as per routine psychiatric practice. DSM-IV PDs were assessed using both self-reported questionnaire and structured clinical interview. Results The prevalence estimate for any type of PD in the total sample is 31.93% as reflected in the DSM-IV. This figure is nearly 110 times as large as the prevalence estimate for the CCMD-3. Only 9 outpatients were diagnosed with PD based on the CCMD-3. Amongst the 10 forms of DSM-IV PDs, avoidant (8.1%), obsessive–compulsive (7.6%), paranoid (6.0%), and borderline (5.8%) PDs were the most prevalent subtypes. This study found that PDs are commonly associated with the following: (i) the younger aged; (ii) single marital status; (iii) those who were not raised by their parents; (iv) introverted personalities; (v) first-time seekers of psycho-counseling treatment; and (vi) patients with co-morbid mood or anxiety disorders. Conclusions PDs are easily overlooked when the diagnosis is made based on the CCMD-3 uni-axial diagnostic system. However, it was found that personality pathology is common in the Chinese psychiatric community when using the DSM-IV classification system. Existing evidence suggest, at least indirectly, that there are important benefits of moving towards a multi-axial diagnostic approach in psychiatric practice.
-
Mutualistic processes in the development of psychopathology: The special case of borderline personality disorder.
Alexandria M. Choate,Marina A. Bornovalova,Alison E. Hipwell,Tammy Chung,Stephanie D. Stepp
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000800
2023-02-23
Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science
Abstract:Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious mental illness characterized by instability in affective, cognitive, and interpersonal domains. BPD co-occurs with several mental disorders and has robust, positive associations with the general factors of psychopathology (p-factor) and personality disorders (g-PD). Consequently, some researchers have purported BPD to be a marker of p, such that the core features of BPD reflect a generalized liability to psychopathology. This assertion has largely stemmed from cross-sectional evidence and no research to date has explicated the developmental relationships between BPD and p. The present study aimed to investigate the development of BPD traits and the p-factor by examining predictions of two opposing frameworks: dynamic mutualism theory and the common cause theory. Competing theories were evaluated to determine which perspective best accounted for the relationship of BPD and p from adolescence into young adulthood. Data were drawn from the Pittsburgh Girls Study (PGS; N = 2,450) and included yearly self-assessments of BPD and other internalizing and externalizing indices from ages 14 to 21. Theories were examined using random-intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPMs) and network models. Results indicated that neither dynamic mutualism nor the common cause theory could fully explain the developmental relations between BPD and p. Instead, both frameworks were partially supported, with p found to strongly predict within-person change in BPD at several ages. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Prevalence and correlates of suicide attempts in Chinese individuals with borderline personality disorder
Fan Yang,Jun Tong,Shu-Fang Zhang,Juan Zhang,Bao-Liang Zhong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.942782
IF: 4.7
2022-08-30
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Abstract:Background: To date, few empirical studies have examined the clinical characteristics of suicide attempts (SA) in individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) in China. Aims: To examine the prevalence and factors associated with SA in Chinese individuals with BPD. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 84 patients with BPD were recruited from a large public psychiatric hospital in Wuhan, China, between 2013 and 2015. Trained experienced psychiatrists interviewed participants to collect clinical data, including demographics, axis I and axis II diagnoses of mental disorders according to the DSM-IV-TR, number of hospitalizations, and history of SA. An interview outline was used to identify the existence of lifetime SA. In addition, the Beck Depression Inventory-II, Buss & Perry Aggression Questionnaire, Child Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form, and Beck Hopelessness Scale were administered to assess respondents' depressive symptoms, aggression, childhood traumatic experiences, and hopelessness. Results: Fifty-two (61.9%) patients reported attempting suicide during their lifetime. Univariate logistic regression analysis screened 7 factors associated with SA in individuals with BPD into Multiple logistic regression analysis: female sex, unemployment, major depressive disorder (MDD), hostility, self-aggression, depressive symptoms, and emotional neglect. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified 3 significant and independent correlates of SA: MDD [odds ratio (OR) = 26.773, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.914–183.132, P = 0.001], hostility (OR = 1.073, CI = 1.019–1.130, P = 0.007), and self-aggression (OR = 1.056, CI = 0.998–1.119, P = 0.060). Conclusion: Chinese individuals with BPD have a high risk of suicide. Correlates of SA in this population differ to some extent from those in Western populations as reported in the literature. Paying attention to MDD and some types of aggression in Chinese individuals with BPD may help identify their risk of suicide. Future large-sample cohort study may improve the limitations of this study and further confirm the point of view above.
psychiatry
-
Borderline personality disorder: associations with psychiatric disorders, somatic illnesses, trauma, and adverse behaviors
Ashley E. Tate,Hanna Sahlin,Shengxin Liu,Yi Lu,Sebastian Lundström,Henrik Larsson,Paul Lichtenstein,Ralf Kuja-Halkola
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01503-z
IF: 11
2022-03-18
Molecular Psychiatry
Abstract:Abstract In one of the largest, most comprehensive studies on borderline personality disorder (BPD) to date, this article places into context associations between this diagnosis and (1) 16 different psychiatric disorders, (2) eight somatic illnesses, and (3) six trauma and adverse behaviors, e.g., violent crime victimization and self-harm. Second, it examines the sex differences in individuals with BPD and their siblings. A total of 1,969,839 Swedish individuals were identified from national registers. Cumulative incidence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was evaluated after 5 years of follow-up from BPD diagnosis and compared with a matched cohort. Associations were estimated as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs from Cox regression. 12,175 individuals were diagnosed with BPD (85.3% female). Individuals diagnosed with BPD had higher cumulative incidences and HRs for nearly all analyzed indicators, especially psychiatric disorders. Anxiety disorders were most common (cumulative incidence 95% CI 33.13% [31.48–34.73]). Other notable findings from Cox regressions include psychotic disorders (HR 95% CI 24.48 [23.14–25.90]), epilepsy (3.38 [3.08–3.70]), violent crime victimization (7.65 [7.25–8.06]), and self-harm (17.72 [17.27–18.19]). HRs in males and females with BPD had overlapping CIs for nearly all indicators. This indicates that a BPD diagnosis is a marker of vulnerability for negative events and poor physical and mental health similarly for both males and females. Having a sibling with BPD was associated with an increased risk for psychiatric disorders, trauma, and adverse behaviors but not somatic disorders. Clinical implications include the need for increased support for patients with BPD navigating the health care system.
biochemistry & molecular biology,neurosciences,psychiatry
-
Preliminary study about the clinical characteristics of borderline personality disorder
ZHOU Min,LUO Jiawen,XIE Bin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-7201.2011.02.004
2011-01-01
Journal of Psychiatry
Abstract:Objective To compare the clinical characteristics of borderline personality disorder with other related personality disorders.Methods A total of 49 files of inpatients with personality disorder diagnosed according to CCMD-2-R or CCMD-3 were retrospectively reviewed and rediagnosed according to DSM-IV.Clinical characteristics were compared among the rediagnosed subgroups.Results The clinical profiles of borderline personality disorder had much overlaps as well as some differences with other personality disorders.Conclusion Borderline personality disorder might be a independent subtype of personality disorder.It has close relationship with the impulsive personality disorder.
-
[What do we know about borderline personality disorder? Current aspects of etiology, diagnostics and treatment]
Jutta Stoffers-Winterling,Annegret Krause-Utz,Klaus Lieb,Martin Bohus
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-021-01140-x
Abstract:Background: Borderline personality disorder (BPS) is considered as a severe mental disorder with a high burden for patients, family members and the healthcare system. Recent years have brought significant advances in understanding and treating BP, leading to an earlier diagnosis and better treatment outcomes. Objective: This article outlines the current state of knowledge on the epidemiology, diagnostics, psychopathology and treatment of BPD and identifies open questions. Material and methods: Based on a literature search in the PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE databases, the latest developments in the topic of BPD for the areas of diagnostics, epidemiology, etiology and treatment are illuminated in a narrative review. Where possible systematic review articles, meta-analyses and evidence-based practice guidelines were also considered. State of the science: At the core of BPS are disorders of emotion regulation, self-image, and interpersonal interaction. The suicide rates range from 2% to 5% and life expectancy is significantly shortened compared with the general population. The effectiveness of differentiated, disorder-specific psychotherapy (especially dialectic behavioral therapy, DBT) is well established. Psychotherapeutic care in the outpatient sector, especially in the field of pediatric and adolescent psychiatry, is still insufficient. Perspectives: Questions about the etiopathology, especially genetic and postulated neurobiological parameters that determine affective hypersensitivity, are largely open. Nosologically, the differentiation from comorbid complex posttraumatic stress disorder (cPTSD) is certainly an important issue, which also has therapeutic consequences.
-
Sex differences in borderline personality disorder: A scoping review
Xinyu Qian,Michelle L. Townsend,Wan Jie Tan,Brin F. S. Grenyer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279015
IF: 3.7
2022-12-30
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is often perceived to be a female-predominant disorder in both research and clinical contexts. Although there is growing recognition of possible sex differences, the current literature remains fragmented and inconclusive. This scoping review aimed to synthesize available research evidence on potential sex differences in BPD. PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web-of-Science were searched from January 1982 to July 2022 surrounding the key concepts of sex and BPD. Data searching and screening processes followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology involving two independent reviewers, and a third reviewer if necessary, and identified 118 papers. Data regarding BPD symptoms, comorbid disorders, developmental factors, biological markers, and treatment were extracted. Data was summarized using the vote counting method or narrative synthesis depending on the availability of literature. Males with BPD were more likely to present externalizing symptoms (e.g., aggressiveness) and comorbid disorders (e.g., substance use), while females with BPD were more likely to present internalizing symptoms (e.g., affective instability) and comorbid disorders (e.g., mood and eating disorders). This review also revealed that substantially more research attention has been given to overall sex differences in baseline BPD symptoms and comorbid disorders. In contrast, there is a dearth of sex-related research pertaining to treatment outcomes, developmental factors, and possible biological markers of BPD. The present scoping review synthesized current studies on sex differences in BPD, with males more likely to present with externalizing symptoms in contrast to females. However, how this might change the prognosis of the disorder or lead to modifications of treatment has not been investigated. Most studies were conducted on western populations, mainly North American (55%) or European (33%), and there is a need for future research to also take into consideration genetic, cultural, and environmental concomitants. As the biological construct of ‘sex’ was employed in the present review, future research could also investigate the social construct ‘gender’. Longitudinal research designs are needed to understand any longer-term sex influence on the course of the disorder.
multidisciplinary sciences
-
Borderline Personality Disorder With Depression Confers Significant Risk of Suicidal Behavior in Mood Disorder Patients—A Comparative Study
John J. Söderholm,J. Lumikukka Socada,Tom Rosenström,Jesper Ekelund,Erkki T. Isometsä
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00290
IF: 4.7
2020-04-17
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Abstract:Objective: We investigated risk factors for suicidal ideation and behavior among currently depressed patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), major depressive episode (MDE) in bipolar disorder (BD), or MDE with comorbid borderline personality disorder (MDE/BPD). We compared current and lifetime prevalence of suicidal ideation and behavior, and investigated dimensional measures of BPD or mixed affective features of the MDE as indicators of risk.Methods: Based on screening of 1,655 referrals, we recruited 124 psychiatric secondary care outpatients with MDE and stratified them into three subcohorts (MDD, BD, and MDE/BPD) using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV I and II. We examined suicidal ideation and behavior with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS). In addition, we quantified the severity of BPD symptoms and BD mixed features both categorically/diagnostically and dimensionally (using instruments such as the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index) in two time frames.Results: There were highly significant differences between the lifetime prevalences of suicide attempts between the subcohorts, with attempts reported by 16% of the MDD, 30% of the BD, and 60% of the BPD subcohort. Remarkably, the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts in patients with comorbid BD and BPD exceeded 90%. The severity of BPD features was independently associated with risk of suicide attempts both lifetime and during the current MDE. It also associated in a dose-dependent manner with recent severity of ideation in both BPD and non-BPD patients. In multinominal logistic regression models, hopelessness was the most consistent independent risk factor for severe suicidal ideation in both time frames, whereas younger age and more severe BPD features were most consistently associated with suicide attempts.Conclusions: Among patients with major depressive episodes, diagnosis of bipolar disorder, or presence of comorbid borderline personality features both imply remarkably high risk of suicide attempts. Risk factors for suicidal ideation and suicidal acts overlap, but may not be identical. The estimated severity of borderline personality features seems to associate with history of suicidal behavior and current severity of suicidal ideation in dose-dependent fashion among all mood disorder patients. Therefore, reliable assessment of borderline features may advance the evaluation of suicide risk.
psychiatry