Bridging the Gap in Community Care for Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder: Protocol for Qualitative Inquiry Into Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Perspectives on Service Gaps and Potential Solutions for Severe Emotion Dysregulation (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by severe emotion dysregulation that is often complicated by comorbid diagnoses, deliberate self-harm, and chronic suicidal ideation. Unfortunately, current care pathways for individuals with BPD are strained by limited resources, inadequate training, and an overuse of emergency departments and crisis teams. Such barriers result in delayed access to effective treatment, which increases risk of deterioration, disability, and morbidity. A first step toward addressing these limitations of the current care pathway is to understand key stakeholders’ lived experiences in this pathway and their perspectives on potential solutions. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this paper is to present a protocol for a study that explores the lived experiences of the current care pathway from the perspectives of patients with BPD, as well as their caregivers and clinicians. METHODS A qualitative approach is most appropriate for the exploratory nature of the research objective. Accordingly, 3 to 6 patients with a diagnosis of BPD, 3 caregivers of individuals with BPD, and 3 clinicians of patients diagnosed with BPD will be invited to participate in individual, semistructured interviews that focus on service experiences. RESULTS It is anticipated that results will yield insight into the lived experiences of patients with BPD, caregivers, and clinicians and provide a better understanding of the perceived gaps in services and potential solutions. Results are expected to be available in 12 months. CONCLUSIONS This paper describes a protocol for a qualitative study that seeks to understand the lived experiences and perspectives of key stakeholders (patients, caregivers, and clinicians) on the current care pathway for BPD. Results will provide a basis for future research in this area and will have the potential to inform training, practice, and policy. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/14885
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 | 0.067 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
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".