Experience, knowledge and attitudes of mental health staff regarding clients with a borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of mental health staff experience, knowledge and attitudes regarding the management of clients with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) aimed to obtain baseline data to provide direction for developing planned education and determining staff willingness to participate in such training. A 23-item questionnaire was developed and posted to mental health staff in a public Area Mental Health Service in New South Wales (n = 516). A total of 229 staff completed the questionnaire. Most staff (85%) reported having contact with clients who have a diagnosis of BPD at least once a month or more frequently, with 32% of respondents reporting daily contact. Eighty per cent of respondents found dealing with clients who have a BPD to be moderate to very difficult; 84% of staff felt that dealing with this client group was more difficult than dealing with other client groups. Most staff (82%) believed that, as mental health professionals, they had a role in the assessment, management and referral of clients with BPD, as well as in educating and providing information. Staff readily identified resources which would be helpful to them when working with such clients. It was encouraging to see that the majority of staff (95%) indicated their willingness to gain further education and training in the management of these clients. Although many staff believed they were knowledgeable about and confident in managing these clients, most staff also indicated difficulties posed by these clients and perceived a need for further education and training in this area.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".