Associations Between Generalist Knowledge of Borderline Personality Disorder and Clinician Factors and Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is highly stigmatized. It is associated with negative clinician attitudes, which have been shown to improve with training. This study presents data collected at formal trainings in good psychiatric management (GPM) of BPD at several sites in the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Sweden. Three hundred twenty seven clinical professionals completed a 48-question true/false quiz testing knowledge of GPM, with a small subset (N = 33) that also completed a 13-item assessment of attitudes about BPD. Knowledge of GPM did not differ between course participants of different disciplines (e.g., psychiatry, psychology, and social work) but did differ according to level of GPM training and experience practicing GPM. Clinicians with experience working in specialty treatment programs focused on BPD scored higher than clinicians without this type of experience, but the scores of these more generalist clinicians were lower only by a few points. Using linear regression, we analyzed the association between GPM knowledge and negative clinician attitudes toward care of people with BPD. Greater knowledge of GPM was associated with decreased ratings of dislike of BPD patients, avoidance of treating them, and hopelessness about their prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".