Borderline personality disorder (BPD) has onset in adolescence, but is typically first diagnosed in young adulthood. This paper provides a narrative review of the current evidence on diagnosis, comorbidity, phenomenology and treatment of BPD in adolescence. Instruments available for diagnosis are reviewed and their strengths and limitations discussed. Having confirmed the robustness of the diagnosis and the potential for its reliable clinical assessment, we then explore current understandings of the mechanisms of the disorder and focus on neurobiological underpinnings and research on psychological mechanisms. Findings are accumulating to suggest that adolescent BPD has an underpinning biology that is similar in some ways to adult BPD but differs in some critical features. Evidence for interventions focuses on psychological therapies. Several encouraging research studies suggest that early effective treatment is possible. Treatment development has just begun, and while adolescent-specific interventions are still in the process of evolution, most existing therapies represent adaptations of adult models to this developmental phase. There is also a significant opportunity for prevention, albeit there are few data to date to support such initiatives. This review emphasizes that there can be no justification for failing to make an early diagnosis of this enduring and pervasive problem.

The impact of school-closings on adolescents’ mental health and well-being in the management of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is subject to ongoing public debate. Reliable data to inform a balanced discussion are limited. Drawing on a large ongoing multi-site project in Germany, we assessed differences in self-reported psychopathology in a matched convenience-sample of adolescents assessed pre- (November 26, 2018 to March 13, 2020; n = 324) and post the first lockdown (March 18, 2020 to August 29, 2020; n = 324) early 2020 in Germany. We found no evidence for an increase in emotional and behavioral problems, depression, thoughts of suicide or suicide attempts, eating disorder symptoms, or a decrease in general health-related quality of life. Reported suicide plans significantly decreased from 6.14 to 2.16%. Similarly, conduct problems decreased in the post-lockdown period. Family risk-factors did not moderate these findings. The influence of socioeconomic status on emotional and behavioral problems as well as depression decreased during the lockdown. Based on the present findings, the first school-closing in Germany had no immediate and severe impact on adolescents’ well-being. However, caution is warranted as our data covers a fairly small, affluent sample over a limited time-span and long-term consequences cannot be ruled out.

Abstract. One of the most common personality disorders among adolescents and young adults is the Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). The objective of current study was to assess three questionnaires that can reliably screen for BPD in adolescents and young adults (N = 53): the McLean Screening Instrument for BPD (MSI-BPD; Zanarini et al., 2003 ), the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire 4th edition – BPD scale (PDQ-4 BPD; Hyler, 1994 ), and the SCID-II Patient Questionnaire – BPD scale (SCID-II-PQ BPD). The nine criteria of BPD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV; APA, 1994 ) were measured with the Structural Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II disorders – BPD scale (SCID-II; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, Williams, & Benjamin, 1995 ). Correlations between the questionnaires and the SCID-II were calculated. In addition, the sensitivity and specificity of the questionnaires were tested. All instruments predicted the BPD diagnosis equally well.

BackgroundAs borderline personality disorder (BPD) is increasingly considered a lifespan developmental disorder, we need to focus on risk factors and precursors in the developmental pathways to BPD, in order to enable early detection and intervention. Within this developmental pathway, adolescence is a crucial phase in the light of the manifestation of the disorder. Relational factors such as adverse childhood experiences and current relational problems can be considered important in adolescents who are at-risk for BPD. Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a key precursor for adolescent BPD and one of the most promising targets for early detection and intervention of BPD.MethodsIn a clinical sample of 152 adolescents engaging in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) disorder referred to mental healthcare in Germany, this study investigated whether we can differentiate who has BPD from 1) adverse childhood experiences; and 2) the quality of current relationships, both with parents and peers. BPD was assessed both categorically as a dichotomized score and dimensionally as a continuous score.ResultsMore adverse childhood experiences, but not low quality of current social relationships, were related to more BPD symptoms and an increased risk for meeting full criteria for BPD. In the dimensional model, current social relationship quality with parents and peers did not show a moderating (protecting or aggravating) effect on the association between adverse childhood experiences and BPD. Using a categorical approach, however, the association between childhood adversity and meeting full criteria for BPD was higher in individuals reporting higher quality of current parent-child relationship.ConclusionsThese results highlight adverse childhood experiences as risk factors of BPD, while the role of current social relationships seems more complex.

Early detection and intervention can counteract mental disorders and risk behaviours among adolescents. However, help-seeking rates are low. School-based screenings are a promising tool to detect adolescents at risk for mental problems and to improve help-seeking behaviour. We assessed associations between the intervention “Screening by Professionals” (ProfScreen) and the use of mental health services and at-risk state at 12 month follow-up compared to a control group. School students (aged 15 ± 0.9 years) from 11 European countries participating in the “Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe” (SEYLE) study completed a self-report questionnaire on mental health problems and risk behaviours. ProfScreen students considered “at-risk” for mental illness or risk behaviour based on the screening were invited for a clinical interview with a mental health professional and, if necessary, referred for subsequent treatment. At follow-up, students completed another self-report, additionally reporting on service use. Of the total sample (N = 4,172), 61.9% were considered at-risk. 40.7% of the ProfScreen at-risk participants invited for the clinical interview attended the interview, and 10.1% of subsequently referred ProfScreen participants engaged in professional treatment. There were no differences between the ProfScreen and control group regarding follow-up service use and at-risk state. Attending the ProfScreen interview was positively associated with follow-up service use (OR = 1.783, 95% CI = 1.038–3.064), but had no effect on follow-up at-risk state. Service use rates of professional care as well as of the ProfScreen intervention itself were low. Future school-based interventions targeting help-seeking need to address barriers to intervention adherence.Clinical Trials Registration: The trial is registered at the US National Institute of Health (NIH) clinical trial registry (NCT00906620, registered on 21 May, 2009), and the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00000214, registered on 27 October, 2009).

Background: This study investigated relations between personality pathology and mentalizing capacities reflected in social information processing (SIP) of adolescents. Sampling and Methods: 96 adolescent outpatients completed a structured interview regarding SIP. Their clinicians completed a checklist based on DSM-IV, assessing severity of personality pathology. Results: Significant relations were found between the severity of personality pathology and SIP: the more severe the personality pathology, the higher the intensity of reported emotions, the more likely adolescents were to choose inadequate coping strategies and aggressive reactions in social situations, and the more positively they evaluated aggressive reactions. Severity of traits of antisocial (ASPD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) had unique associations with distinctive SIP variables: ASPD being more related to inadequate coping strategies, less reflection on other's motives and aggressive responses, and BPD being more related to avoidant or prosocial responses and in particular to memories of frustrating events. Conclusions: This study provides evidence for difficulties in SIP among adolescents with more severe personality pathology, suggesting that the steps in the SIP model can be used to operationalize mentalizing problems. The results seem to paint a picture of ASPD and BPD having a shared background, but their own specific problems concerning SIP.

It has been argued that a heightened emotional sensitivity interferes with the cognitive processing of facial emotion recognition and may explain the intensified emotional reactions to external emotional stimuli of adults with personality pathology, such as borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study examines if and how deviations in facial emotion recognition also occur in adolescents with personality pathology. Forty-two adolescents with personality pathology, 111 healthy adolescents and 28 psychiatric adolescents without personality pathology completed the Emotion Recognition Task, measuring their accuracy and sensitivity in recognizing positive and negative emotion expressions presented in several, morphed, expression intensities. Adolescents with personality pathology showed an enhanced recognition accuracy of facial emotion expressions compared to healthy adolescents and clients with various Axis-I psychiatric diagnoses. They were also more sensitive to less intensive expressions of emotions than clients with various Axis-I psychiatric diagnoses, but not more than healthy adolescents. As has been shown in research on adults with BPD, adolescents with personality pathology show enhanced facial emotion recognition.

This meta-analysis of cross-sectional data aimed to shed light on the often assumed peak in mean-level of borderline personality features during middle to late adolescence (i.e. age 17–22). Borderline personality features were operationalized through the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II). Search terms were entered into PsycINFO and Scopus. A total of 168 samples were included in the analyses, comprising 25,053 participants. Mean age ranged from 14.35 to 51.47 years ( M = 29.01, SD = 8.52) and mean number of borderline personality features from 0 to 8.10 ( M = 4.59, SD = 2.34). The hypothesized peak between age 17 and 22 was not substantiated by the confirmatory ANOVA analysis. However, subsequent exploratory GAM analysis provided evidence for a peak at 29.4 years. Caution is needed in interpreting these findings given that different trends appeared when GAM models were constructed separately for community, patient and borderline personality disorder (BPD) samples. Age differences in community samples indicated a significant linear decline in mean-level of borderline personality features over time. A linear rising trend was found in BPD samples. As a between-person mean-level approach was used in the current study, future longitudinal studies are needed to substantiate if between-person age difference generalize to within-person changes.