Readiness and Personality Disorders: Considering Patients’ Readiness for Change and Our System’s Readiness for Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The culture around personality disorder treatment has changed drastically in the past generation. While once perceived as effectively untreatable, there are now numerous evidence-based treatment approaches for personality disorders (especially borderline personality disorder). The questions, however, of who should be matched to which treatment approach, and when, remain largely unanswered. In other areas of psychiatry, particularly substance use disorders and eating disorders, assessing patient treatment readiness is viewed as indispensable for treatment planning. Despite this, relatively little research has been done with respect to readiness and personality disorder treatment. In this article, we propose multiple explanations for why this may be the case, relating to both the unique features of personality disorders and the current cultural landscape around their treatment. While patients with personality disorders often face cruel stigmatization, and much more work needs to be done to expand access to care (i.e., our system's readiness for patients), even gold-standard treatment options are unlikely to work if a patient is not ready for treatment. Further study of readiness in the context of personality disorders could help more effectively match patients to the right treatment, at the right time. Such research could also aid development of strategies to enhance patient readiness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".