What strategies do people with borderline personality disorder use to maintain their well-being and performance at work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) often experience instability in their career paths. Previous studies have mainly focused on their challenges in work participation. There has been limited attention on their job tenure strategies. This qualitative study aimed to identify job tenure strategies of people with BPD who are currently employed. METHODS: Between November 2021 and March 2024, participants completed an online survey combining questionnaires and qualitative open-ended questions covering eleven themes, such as task management, adherence to workplace rules and self-perception of competence. The sample comprised 103 women, 22 men, and five non-binary persons, with an average age of 35. In addition to BPD, about half of the participants reported co-occurring diagnoses, such as anxiety disorders. For 54% of participants, their current primary job was aligned with their formal training. For 65%, it corresponded to their personal interests, and for 83%, with their competencies. RESULTS: To maintain well-being and performance at work, participants reported using strategies that involved balancing work and daily life through stable routines and health-supporting lifestyle habits. Key strategies enabling work functioning focused on self-regulation, cultivating positive workplace relationships, as well as task and time management. Organizing a calm work environment that facilitates concentration, using stress reduction and emotional regulation techniques, and seeking support from colleagues and managers were frequent examples. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight a variety of self-directed, interpersonal and task-related actions that people with BPD use to maintain job tenure when employed. These personalized strategies can enrich the development of sustainable work reintegration interventions. Future research should examine the empirical effectiveness of these strategies and explore additional job tenure factors, such as work accommodations tailored to the needs of people 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".