This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder (BPD). B A C K G R O U N D Description of the condition Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a condition first recognised in the 20th century (Gunderson 2009). Historically, the term BPD was coined by Adolph Stern to describe a condition in the 'borderland' between psychosis and neurosis (Stern 1938). Subsequent psychoanalytic contributions (especially that of Kernberg 1975) have reaffirmed this distinction, emphasising that the capacity to test reality remains grossly intact but is subject to subtle distortions, especially under stress. According to current diagnostic criteria, BPD is characterised by a pervasive pattern of instability in affect regulation, impulse control , interpersonal relationships, and self-image (APA 2013; WHO 1993). Clinical hallmarks include emotional dysregulation, impulsive aggression, repeated self-injury, and chronic suicidal tendencies (Fonagy 2009; Lieb 2004). Whereas some authors have suggested that it is a variant of affective disorders (Akiskal 2004), others claim that it is only the causes of these diseases that partially overlap in BPD (Paris 2007). Despite the difficulties in defining and delimiting the condition, BPD is still being widely researched. Its importance stems from the considerable psychological suffering of the persons concerned (

No abstract

The proposed ICD-11 personality disorder domains can be accurately described using designated traits from the DSM-5 personality trait system. A scoring algorithm for the ICD-11 personality disorder domains is provided in appendix.

No abstract

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) has been shown to be a valid and reliable diagnosis in adolescents and associated with a decrease in both general and social functioning. With evidence linking BPD in adolescents to poor prognosis, it is important to develop a better understanding of factors and mechanisms contributing to the development of BPD. This could potentially enhance our knowledge and facilitate the design of novel treatment programs and interventions for this group. In this paper, we outline a theoretical model of BPD in adolescents linking the original mentalization-based theory of BPD, with recent extensions of the theory that focuses on hypermentalizing and epistemic trust. We then provide clinical case vignettes to illustrate this extended theoretical model of BPD. Furthermore, we suggest a treatment approach to BPD in adolescents that focuses on the reduction of hypermentalizing and epistemic mistrust. We conclude with an integration of theory and practice in the final section of the paper and make recommendations for future work in this area. (PsycINFO Database Record

In this article, the authors provide a narrative review of the mounting evidence base on personality disorder in childhood and adolescence. Topics covered include diagnostic validity, prevalence, developmental issues, comorbidity, risk and protective factors, and treatment. Novel indicated prevention and early intervention programs for borderline personality disorder in adolescence are given special priority. To conclude, directions for future research are provided.

11th Edition (ICD-11) Classification of Personality Disorders provides the option of coding 5 trait domain qualifiers that contribute to the individual expression of personality dysfunction (i.e., Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Anankastia). Previous investigations of these trait domains are based on self-reported data, and so is much of the research literature from which the ICD-11 trait model has evolved. However, the ICD-11 itself involves judgments made by clinicians about their patients. Thus, it is important to examine whether the trait domains identified in self-report studies can also be obtained from clinician-reported data. A sample of 238 mental health patients were characterized by clinicians using an informant-report form of the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD-IRF). As expected, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) indicated that clinician-reported ICD-11 trait domains could be captured by both 4-and 5-factor structures, of which the 5-factor solution seemed less conceptually sound relative to the 4-factor solution.The 4-factor model captured the unipolar domains of Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Dissociality, along with a bipolar domain of Disinhibition versus Anankastia, whereas the 5-factor model furthermore captured features of Disinhibition and Anankastia as 2 separate factors. The hierarchical structure from 1 to 5 factors partially resembled previously reported trait structures and models of psychopathology. These findings overall support the multimethod robustness of ICD-11 trait domain qualifiers and the potential for their valid ratings by mental health clinicians. The PiCD-IRF is provided in the online supplementary material -for clinical or research purposes.

Aim The ICD‐11 classification of personality disorders (PDs) has adopted a dimensional approach which includes three levels of severity (mild, moderate and severe) with the option of specifying five trait qualifiers (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition and anankastia) and one borderline pattern qualifier. This study examined mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD‐11 PD framework compared with the ICD‐10 categorical PD framework. Method A sample of 163 mental health professionals (primarily psychologists, nurses and medical doctors) completed a survey in which they were asked to apply the ICD‐10 and ICD‐11 PD classifications on one of their patients followed by judgement of their clinical utility. Results The ICD‐11 PD framework was generally rated as being slightly more useful than the ICD‐10 framework even when accounting for educational background and years of experience. This advantage particularly involved the utility for treatment planning, communicating with patients, comprehensiveness and ease of use. The two frameworks showed no significant differences with respect to utility for communicating with other professionals and describing global personality. Conclusion This study provided initial evidence that mental health professionals perceive the ICD‐11 PD classification as slightly more useful for clinical practice than the ICD‐10 classification. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.