Estimating the prevalence of borderline personality disorder in mothers involved in youth protection services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characteristics of borderline personality disorder (BPD) can undermine maternal capacity and in some cases lead to involvement with youth protection services (YPS). Yet, few studies exist on the prevalence of maternal BPD in this context and on the comparison of these families with families with other maternal psychiatric disorders or families with no mental illness within YPS. The current study surveyed 291 caseworkers working with mothers whose children and adolescents are followed by YPS. After reported prevalence was adjusted with validation procedures, the prevalence of maternal BPD in a sample of 1875 mothers was 34.3%. Comparison of three groups of families suggest that some risk factors, including substance abuse and severe conjugal conflicts, were more frequent in mothers with BPD than in mothers with other psychiatric illness or none. Furthermore, results revealed that 48.9% of mothers with BPD had a history of being followed by YPS in their childhood. Finally, children of mothers with BPD were placed at a younger age than the other children and were less often reported for conduct disorder. These results call for more attention to these highly vulnerable parents and children in both research and in adult and child mental health services. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".