The Role of Assertive Community Treatment in the Treatment of People With Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) is being used to treat people with borderline personality disorder (BPD), a puzzling trend given the lack of empirical support for this practice and the consensus that reserving ACT for a carefully selected population is critical to the sustainability of this costly intervention. Little is known about the contributors to this phenomenon and the ways in which ACT programs have adapted to the influx of patients with BPD. Many ACT programs in the US and Canada have integrated Dialectical Behavioral Therapy into the regular ACT programming, a practice that also lacks rigorous evidence of effectiveness. We provide a framework for policy-makers to decide on the optimal role of ACT in the continuum of care for people with BPD, and offer policy recommendations to address this phenomenon. There is an urgent need to generate the missing evidence and to improve and expand the services available to people with BPD, particularly those who are now being treated on ACT programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".