Caregivers of individuals with borderline personality disorder: The relationship between leading caregiver interventions and psychological distress/positive mental well‐being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burden and psychological distress are higher in informal caregivers (ICs) of people with severe emotional and behavior dysregulation who have been given a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) compared with non-caregivers. The current cross-sectional study examines the difference in outcomes of ICs of people with BPD who have received the intervention Family Connections (FC) and who also led interventions for other caregivers (caregiver-leaders) compared with those who have attended FC but not led caregiver interventions (non-leader-FC participants). The sample for this research is from a larger study (Hayes et al., 2023, Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 10, 31). Data for 347 participants who self-reported receiving FC and completed the McLean Screening Instrument for BPD-Carer Version, the Brief COPE, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, the Kessler Psychological Distress scale, the WHO-5 Well-being Index, and the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale were analyzed. The results found that being a caregiver-leader was associated with higher positive mental well-being and lower psychological distress compared with non-leader-FC participants. Being a caregiver-leader was also associated with significantly greater use of the coping strategy of positive reframing and lower use of behavioral disengagement and self-blame than non-leader-FC participants. The study provides preliminary evidence that for those who have received FC, becoming an intervention leader is associated with better outcomes than caregivers who do not become leaders and provides support for caregiver-led rollout of FC across services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".