A comparison of experiences of care and expressed emotion among caregivers of young people with first-episode psychosis or borderline personality disorder features

A randomised controlled trial of a psychoeducational group intervention for family and friends of young people with borderline personality disorder features

OBJECTIVE

Preliminary evidence indicates that interventions designed to support family and friends ('carers') of young people with early-stage borderline personality disorder effectively improve carer outcomes. None of these interventions have been tested in a randomised controlled trial.

METHOD

This clustered, partially nested, randomised controlled trial was conducted at Orygen, Melbourne, Australia. Carers of young people (aged 15-25 years) with borderline personality disorder features were randomly assigned as a unit in a 1:1 ratio, balanced for young person's sex and age, to receive a 15-day intervention comprising: (1) the three-session, in-person, Making Sense of BPD (MS-BPD) multi-family group programme, plus two self-directed online psychoeducational modules (MS-BPD + Online, n = 38), or (2) the two self-directed online psychoeducational modules alone (Online, n = 41). The primary outcome was 'negative experiences of care', measured with the Experience of Caregiving Inventory, at the 7-week endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 79 carers were randomised (pool of 281, 197 excluded, 94 declined) and 73 carers (51 females [69.9%], Mage = 43.8 years [standard deviation, SD = 12.9], MS-BPD + Online n = 35 [47.9%], Online n = 38 [52.1%]) provided follow-up data and were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. The intent-to-treat (and per protocol) analyses did not find any significant differences between the groups on the primary (d = -0.32; 95% confidence interval = [-17.05, 3.97]) or secondary outcomes. Regardless of treatment group, caregivers improved significantly in their personality disorder knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Delivering MS-BPD in conjunction with an online psychoeducational intervention was not found to provide additional benefit over and above access to an online intervention alone. In accordance with national guidelines, carer interventions should be routinely offered by youth mental health services as part of early intervention programmes for borderline personality disorder. Further research is warranted into which interventions work for whom, carers' preferences for support and barriers to care.

The diagnosis that should speak its name: why it is ethically right to diagnose and treat personality disorder during adolescence

Although national guidelines explicitly state that personality disorder can be diagnosed and treated in young people aged 12 to 18 years (adolescents), most clinicians remain hesitant. This creates a gap between science and practice, which we argue is largely motivated by moral reasons and, therefore, is best challenged by ethical arguments. We provide seven arguments in support of the notion that it is ethically right to diagnose and treat personality disorder when it occurs in adolescents. Central to these arguments is the scientific evidence that features of personality disorder are among the best predictors of a complex cluster of psychopathology leading to impairments in many areas of current and future mental, social and vocational functioning. We argue that intervention during adolescence and young adulthood is not only humane, but also critical for efforts to avert the longstanding psychosocial and health problems that seem refractory to treatment in adults with personality disorder. Moreover, we argue that regular services are often inadequately equipped to meet the needs of young people with personality disorder and that the common 'stepped-care' approach should be replaced by a 'staged-care' approach. Finally, we argue that early detection and intervention might have anti-stigmatizing effects, similar to other areas of healthcare in which stigmatizing labels have changed meaning when the conditions to which they refer have become more amenable to treatment.

Commentary: Commentary on the Twitter comments evoked by the May 2022 debate on diagnosing personality disorders in adolescents

The debate about the value and utility of personality disorder (PD) diagnosis in adolescence published in the May 2022 issue of CAMH generated fervent Twitter discussion. This commentary addresses some points raised in the Twitter discussion that represent important social and/or cultural beliefs that are often presented in day-to-day practice but are rarely tested in the context of scientific evidence. This includes, in particular, the assertion that symptoms used to diagnose personality disorder are better described as sequelae of trauma, and the assertion that effective treatment for PD is possible without a diagnosis. The call for a fundamental transformation of mental health services that currently do not meet the needs of people with PD and for the involvement of people with lived experience as equal partner in this process is supported by evidence and might represent common ground among those clinician-scientist advocating for early intervention for PD and those expressing their concerns about this issue.

Co-occurring first-episode psychosis and borderline personality pathology in an early intervention for psychosis cohort

INTRODUCTION

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is common among people diagnosed with first episode of psychosis (FEP), but is often under-recognized and under-researched. This study aimed to determine: (i) the prevalence of borderline personality pathology (subthreshold features and categorical disorder) in a FEP cohort (termed FEP + BPP); (ii) demographic and clinical factors associated with FEP + BPP; (iii) the symptomatic and functional outcomes.

METHODS

This study was conducted within the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) at Orygen over the 30-month period between 2014 and 2016. BPP was evaluated by using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Questionnaire BPD criteria.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 457 young people with a FEP (mean age 19.5 years, 56% male), 18.4% had borderline personality pathology (BPP). Compared with FEP alone, young people with FEP + BPP were more likely to be female, younger, Australian-born. In addition, young people with FEP + BPP were more likely to be diagnosed with Psychosis NOS, present with more severe hallucinations, and have alcohol abuse. Young people with FEP + BPP had more relationship difficulties at presentation and they were more likely to suffer of depression and to engage in self-harm throughout the follow-up. In relation to outcome, FEP + BPP was not associated with different rates of remission or relapse, however they were less likely to be admitted to hospital at presentation or involuntarily during their episode of care.

CONCLUSION

BPP is a common occurrence in psychotic disorders and is associated with more severe hallucinations and depression with higher risks of self-harm. Specific interventions need to be developed.