[Attitudes of general physicians and family medicine residents towards patients with borderline personality disorder].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several studies suggest that health professionals show negative attitudes towards people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Many publications have focused on the attitudes of nurses or other type of clinicians like social workers or psychologists. Few researches concern the attitudes of general physicians towards BPD even if they are the main professionals involved in the evaluation and treatment of these patients. Additionally, patients with BPD frequently consult general physicians and, because of the difficulties interacting with these patients, they do not always receive the treatments required by their condition. This research aims to assess the attitudes of general physicians and family medicine residents regarding patients presenting with this disorder. METHOD: Forty family medicine residents and thirty-five general physicians were compared to thirty-nine mental health professionals using the Attitudes toward people with BPD Scale (ABPDS; Bouchard, 2001). This measure has two subscales labeled Comfort when interacting with someone who has BPD and Positives perceptions about BPD. The internal consistency of the scale as well as the two distinct factors are satisfactory. The participants also complete a socio-demographic questionnaire. Means, t tests, ANOVAs and factorial ANOVAs are completed in order to compare the three groups on the ABPDS and explore the influence of variables such as sex, age, years of experience, and professional setting (urban or rural) on the results. RESULTS: The results show that general physicians have similar attitudes than mental health professionals towards people presenting with BPD and that family medicine residents present less positive attitude than the other two groups. In addition, clinicians with less experience tend to have less positive attitudes towards people with BPD and clinicians from urban settings seem to have more positive attitude. It was difficult to determinate which variables influence the results because the years of experience, the professional settings and the title of the participants are extremely related. The factorial ANOVAs show no interaction effect between these three variables. CONCLUSION: Several studies show that health professionals present negative attitudes toward patients with BPD. This study reveals that general physicians and family medicine residents show respectively similar attitudes or less positive attitudes than other mental health professionals. These results underline the importance of providing specific training about BPD to family medicine residents. Because general physicians guide the evaluations and interventions concerning these patients and mental health professionals interact regularly with BPD, it will be helpful if all the clinicians receive more specific training regarding this disorder.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".