Dialectical Behavior Therapy Compared With General Psychiatric Management for Borderline Personality Disorder: Clinical Outcomes and Functioning Over a 2-Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a 2-year prospective naturalistic follow-up study to evaluate posttreatment clinical outcomes in outpatients who were randomly selected to receive 1 year of either dialectical behavior therapy or general psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder. METHOD: Patients were assessed by blind raters 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. The clinical effectiveness of treatment was assessed on measures of suicidal and nonsuicidal self-injurious behaviors, health care utilization, general symptom distress, depression, anger, quality of life, social adjustment, borderline psychopathology, and diagnostic status. The authors conducted between-group comparisons using generalized estimating equation, mixed-effects models, or chi-square statistics, depending on the distribution and nature of the data. RESULTS: Both treatment groups showed similar and statistically significant improvements on the majority of outcomes 2 years after discharge. The original effects of treatment did not diminish for any outcome domain, including suicidal and nonsuicidal self-injurious behaviors. Further improvements were seen on measures of depression, interpersonal functioning, and anger. However, even though two-thirds of the participants achieved diagnostic remission and significant increases in quality of life, 53% were neither employed nor in school, and 39% were receiving psychiatric disability support after 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: One year of either dialectical behavior therapy or general psychiatric management was associated with long-lasting positive effects across a broad range of outcomes. Despite the benefits of these specific treatments, one important finding that replicates previous research is that participants continued to exhibit high levels of functional impairment. The effectiveness of adjunctive rehabilitation strategies to improve general functioning deserves additional study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".