Partners of Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature Examining Their Experiences and the Supports Available to Them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over a third of individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are in long-term romantic partnerships, yet little is known about the experiences of their partners. Because difficulties in interpersonal relationships are a hallmark of BPD, it is especially important to understand the support needs of their romantic partners. This systematic review investigates the experiences of romantic partners of adult individuals with BPD and the interventions designed to support them. Twenty-two articles were found, 13 of which pertained to partner experiences and 9 to interventions. Thematic analysis was used to identify three main themes in the descriptions of partners' experiences: emotional challenges, dual roles as both a romantic partner and parental/therapeutic figure, and lack of control. The available interventions, which consisted of educational and skills-based programs with limited efficacy data, addressed only a small portion of the subthemes identified in the literature describing partners' experiences. The discrepancy between the needs identified in the partner-experience literature and the interventions available suggests a need to develop and evaluate more partner-oriented programming. Such programming should use psychoeducation, peer support, and individual- and relationship-based skills development to address and therefore improve the experiences of partners of individuals with 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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".