Systematic Review of the Effectiveness and Experiences of Treatment for Men With Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In clinical settings, among individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD), typically 75% are female and 25% male, although this discrepancy is not reported in the community. In the literature, little is known of the effectiveness and experiences of treatment of men with BPD. We aimed to review the effectiveness and experiences of treatment for men with BPD and outline future research priorities to promote better recovery. We searched Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO for eligible studies from inception until July 29, 2022. Peer-reviewed primary research articles on treatment effectiveness or experience for men with BPD were included. Data from eligible studies were synthesized in a narrative review. The protocol of our review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022351908). Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, and men with BPD from eight countries were represented. Psychological therapies included Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, Systems Training for Emotional Predictability and Problem Solving, Mentalization Based Therapy, and psychoanalytic therapy. Pharmacologic treatment included topiramate, divalproex Extended-Release, and high-dose baclofen. Five studies investigated the service utilization of men with BPD. Compared to women, men were less likely to access treatment for BPD or find treatment helpful. Our findings demonstrated the potential efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacologic interventions in reducing anger, aggression, and rule-breaking behavior, with limited evidence for reduction in suicide-related outcomes. Our findings are limited by inadequate power and heterogeneity of the included studies. Further research with larger sample sizes and qualitative studies is needed to better understand the treatment experience for men with BPD.
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 | 0.010 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".