A randomised controlled trial of a psychoeducational group intervention for family and friends of young people with borderline personality disorder features.

OBJECTIVE: Preliminary evidence indicates that interventions designed to support family and friends ('carers') of young people with early-stage borderline personality disorder effectively improve carer outcomes. None of these interventions have been tested in a randomised controlled trial. METHOD: This clustered, partially nested, randomised controlled trial was conducted at Orygen, Melbourne, Australia. Carers of young people (aged 15-25 years) with borderline personality disorder features were randomly assigned as a unit in a 1:1 ratio, balanced for young person's sex and age, to receive a 15-day intervention comprising: (1) the three-session, in-person, Making Sense of BPD (MS-BPD) multi-family group programme, plus two self-directed online psychoeducational modules (MS-BPD + Online, n = 38), or (2) the two self-directed online psychoeducational modules alone (Online, n = 41). The primary outcome was 'negative experiences of care', measured with the Experience of Caregiving Inventory, at the 7-week endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 79 carers were randomised (pool of 281, 197 excluded, 94 declined) and 73 carers (51 females [69.9%], Mage = 43.8 years [standard deviation, SD = 12.9], MS-BPD + Online n = 35 [47.9%], Online n = 38 [52.1%]) provided follow-up data and were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. The intent-to-treat (and per protocol) analyses did not find any significant differences between the groups on the primary (d = -0.32; 95% confidence interval = [-17.05, 3.97]) or secondary outcomes. Regardless of treatment group, caregivers improved significantly in their personality disorder knowledge. CONCLUSION: Delivering MS-BPD in conjunction with an online psychoeducational intervention was not found to provide additional benefit over and above access to an online intervention alone. In accordance with national guidelines, carer interventions should be routinely offered by youth mental health services as part of early intervention programmes for borderline personality disorder. Further research is warranted into which interventions work for whom, carers' preferences for support and barriers to care.

The 'Self' and Borderline Personality Disorder: Conceptual and Clinical Considerations.

Some concept of self has been used by many, although not all, researchers and clinicians as an 'organising construct' for borderline personality disorder (BPD). There is considerable variation in this usage and how clearly researchers have defined the self. Given this diversity, and that 'self' is often used interchangeably with parallel concepts (e.g., psyche, brain-mind, 'person') or with features of self (e.g., self-awareness, identity), unqualified use of the term is problematic. This is further complicated by the heterogeneity and 'comorbidity' of BPD and the limitations of syndromally based psychiatric nosology. Still, BPD remains in current classification systems and can be reliably diagnosed. A considerable body of research on self and BPD has accrued, including a recent profusion and confluence of neuroscientific and sociopsychological findings. These have generated supporting evidence for a supra-ordinate, functionally constituted entity of the self ranging over multiple, interacting levels from an unconscious, 'core' self, through to a reflective, phenotypic, 'idiographic' and relational self constituted by interpersonal and sociocultural experience. Important insights have been generated regarding emotional and social-cognitive dysregulation, disorder of self-awareness, relationality, identity, and coherence and continuity of the self. Many of these are shared by various trauma-related, dissociative disorders. A construct of the self could be useful as an explanatory principle in BPD, which could be construed as a 'self-state' (and relational) disorder, as opposed to a less severe disorder of aspects of the self (e.g., mood or memory). We offer a tentative description of 'Self' in this context, noting that any such construct will require a clear definition and to be evaluable.

The HYPE Clinic: an early intervention service for borderline personality disorder.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) emerges during adolescence and young adulthood and has profound effects throughout this vulnerable developmental phase and beyond. Hitherto, clinical interventions for BPD have focused on individuals with established and/or chronic forms of the disorder. However, over the past 15 years, a body of evidence has developed supporting the reliability, validity, and clinical importance of the diagnosis of BPD in adolescence, underscoring the need for prevention and early intervention for BPD. This paper describes the work of the Helping Young People Early (HYPE) Clinic in Melbourne, Australia. HYPE is a novel indicated prevention and early intervention service for BPD in youth (15 to 25 y of age). It uses an integrated, team-based intervention model comprising time-limited cognitive analytic therapy as developed by Ryle, case management, and general psychiatric care. The HYPE intervention is supported by effectiveness data.

Early intervention for adolescents with borderline personality disorder: quasi-experimental comparison with treatment as usual.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of specialized team-based early intervention for borderline personality disorder (BPD) with treatment as usual. METHOD: In a quasi-experimental design, 32 outpatients who received historical treatment as usual (H-TAU) were compared with 78 participants from a recently published randomized controlled trial of cognitive analytic therapy (CAT; n = 41) versus manualized good clinical care (GCC; n = 37), conducted in a specialized early intervention service for BPD (the Helping Young People Early (HYPE) programme). All participants were 15-18-year-old outpatients who fulfilled 2-9 DSM-IV BPD criteria. It was predicted that, compared with H-TAU, HYPE + GCC and HYPE + CAT would show greater reductions in psychopathology and parasuicidal behaviour and greater improvement in global functioning over 24 months. RESULTS: At 24 month follow up: (i) HYPE + CAT had lower standardized levels of, and a significantly faster standardized rate of improvement in, internalizing and externalizing psychopathology, compared with H-TAU; and (ii) HYPE + GCC had lower standardized levels of internalizing psychopathology and a faster rate of improvement in global functioning than H-TAU. HYPE + CAT yielded the greatest median improvement on the four continuous outcome measures over 24 months. No adverse effects were shown with any of the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Specialized early intervention for subsyndromal or full-syndrome BPD is more effective than TAU, with HYPE + CAT being the most effective intervention. Reform of existing services using the HYPE model might yield substantial improvements in patient outcomes.

Early intervention for adolescents with borderline personality disorder using cognitive analytic therapy: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No accepted intervention exists for borderline personality disorder presenting in adolescence. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness of up to 24 sessions of cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) or manualised good clinical care (GCC) in addition to a comprehensive service model of care. METHOD: In a randomised controlled trial, CAT and GCC were compared in out-patients aged 15-18 years who fulfilled two to nine of the DSM-IV criteria for borderline personality disorder. We predicted that, compared with the GCC group, the CAT group would show greater reductions in psychopathology and parasuicidal behaviour and greater improvement in global functioning over 24 months. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were randomised and 78 (CAT n=41; GCC n=37) provided follow-up data. There was no significant difference between the outcomes of the treatment groups at 24 months on the pre-chosen measures but there was some evidence that patients allocated to CAT improved more rapidly. No adverse effect was shown with either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAT and GCC are effective in reducing externalising psychopathology in teenagers with sub-syndromal or full-syndrome borderline [corrected] personality disorder. Larger studies are required to determine the specific value of CAT in this population.

Prevention and early intervention for borderline personality disorder.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental disorder that is associated with substantial psychosocial impairment and morbidity, disproportionate use of health resources, a high suicide rate, and a reputation for being "untreatable". A diagnosis of BPD in young people has similar reliability, validity and prevalence to BPD in adults, and almost certainly has serious and pervasive negative repercussions over subsequent decades. Current data are inadequate to inform specific universal or selective prevention programs for BPD. However, they do support including BPD prevention as an outcome when evaluating universal and/or selective interventions for a variety of mental health problems and adverse psychosocial outcomes. The strongest data support early intervention for the emerging BPD phenotype. Early intervention programs will need to be realistic in their aims, require change in clinician attitudes and service systems, and must be mindful of the risk of iatrogenic harm.

Tips and techniques for engaging and managing the reluctant, resistant or hostile young person.

Creating a collaborative doctor-patient relationship is the bedrock upon which effective treatments are delivered. The interaction between normal developmental changes and psychopathology can present particular challenges to clinicians attempting to assess and treat young people. Assuming an attitude in which young people are seen to be doing their best, rather than being deliberately difficult or manipulative, can help clinicians avoid a controlling or punitive relationship and can facilitate collaborative problem solving. Stigma, denial and avoidance, ambivalence, hopelessness and coercion are potential threats to engagement and must be addressed specifically. Challenging patients, such as the reluctant, resistant, aggressive, self-harming or intoxicated patient require specific management strategies that can be learned.