A View from the Trenches: A Survey of Canadian Clinicians' Perspectives Regarding the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop a sense of how borderline personality disorder (BPD) is treated in the community. The focus was on psychotherapeutic treatments. METHODS: A 13-item online questionnaire was distributed to 291 clinicians in the province of British Columbia, Canada. Participants were asked about treatment provision, their opinion of optimal treatment, and clinician confidence using both fixed and open response questions. RESULTS: The response rate was 43%. Of the respondents, 64% indicated that they provided treatment to patients with BPD, although two thirds of those responses indicated use of ill-defined treatment approaches. In the responses that involved what could be described as well-defined treatment approaches, dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) was the most frequently mentioned (20%). Most treatments were offered in an individual therapy format (60%); 38% described providing treatment on a long-term basis. Responses concerning optimal treatment for BPD favored DBT (45%), a combined individual-group therapy format (48%), and long-term duration of treatment (42%). Clinician confidence in treating BPD was low and there was a strong desire for further training. CONCLUSION: The community mental health clinicians who were surveyed were aware of the serious nature of BPD and seek to treat the disorder. However, much of the treatment they provide does not conform to what respondents indicated they considered optimal. Clinicians who responded to the survey seemed relatively unaware of empirically supported psychodynamic treatments for BPD. There is a need for improved training and education regarding BPD and for further dissemination of information concerning empirically supported treatments for BPD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".