Symptom domains and psychosocial functioning in borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is often characterized by severe functional impairment, even after a decrease in symptoms. A comprehensive understanding of psychosocial functioning in BPD is necessary to tailor treatment offer, which should address relevant aspects of daily life. The aims of the present study are to (1) conduct a cross-sectional comparison of functioning of a group with BPD and a non-BPD clinical comparison group at service entry, and to (2) assess the relationship between intensity of BPD symptom domains and psychosocial functioning. METHODS: The sample consists of N = 65 participants with BPD and N = 57 participants from the clinical comparison group without BPD (non-BPD group). The Revised Borderline Follow-up Interview (BFI-R) was used to evaluate psychosocial functioning and the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R) to assess BPD symptoms. Linear, logistic, and multinomial regression models were run separately for each aspect of functioning as a function of BPD status or BPD symptom domains. RESULTS: Only 23% of participants in the BPD group fulfilled criteria for good overall psychosocial functioning, compared to 53% in the non-BPD group. Furthermore, participants in the BPD group were less likely to have completed a high number of years of education, to work consistently, to be financially independent, to be in a cohabiting relationship and have a good relationship with parents. In addition, various links were identified between BPD symptom domains and functional impairments. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with prior research, the main impairments in functioning in the BPD group are found in the educational and vocational domains. Though some domains show impairment, others, like friendships, may act as potential resources. Further investigation on the relationships with symptom domains is required.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".