Peer support for borderline personality disorder: A critical review of its feasibility, acceptability, and alignment with concepts of recovery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many organizations have adopted peer support to increase service alignment with recovery-oriented principles. Yet, few studies have scrutinized borderline personality disorder (BPD)-specific concepts of "recovery" and "recovery-oriented practice," nor evaluated the extent to which existing peer support services (PSS) align with these concepts. We addressed these knowledge gaps in four phases: (a) a literature review to understand BPD-specific concepts of "recovery" and "recovery-oriented practice," (b) a literature review and open web search to describe the implementation, feasibility, or effectiveness of PSS for people with BPD, (c) a landscaping survey of program administrators regarding their BPD-PSS programs, and (d) a critical review of the extent to which current peer support for BPD aligns with "recovery" and "recovery-oriented practice." We identified 40 published sources that defined "recovery" or "recovery-oriented practice" as it pertains to BPD, and narratively summarize these results, nine sources that described PSS for people with BPD, and received survey responses from seven BPD-PSS program administrators. Our critical review highlighted the distinctive but overlapping concepts of "clinical recovery" versus "personal recovery" and underscored the alignment of BPD-PSS with personal recovery goals, including increased self-knowledge and -acceptance, hope, engagement in meaningful social roles and relationships, and self-determination. While peer support is experienced positively by service users, peer supporters, and clinicians, challenges include setting boundaries, minimizing dual roles, and ensuring adequate training, supervision, and personal support to reduce burnout. Peer support appears to be a feasible avenue for meeting the personal recovery goals of people with BPD; however, formal program evaluations are needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".