Diagnostic neglect: the potential impact of losing a separate axis for personality disorder

Threading a pathway through the forest of mood and personality disorders

The classification of mood and personality disorders has become unnecessarily complicated. It has become bogged down by well-meaning but unhelpful subcategories that puzzle the will of clinicians to make useful judgements. The answer is to think of bipolar, depressive and personality disorders as each constituting a spectrum of severity and not to be too preoccupied with individual labels. It would also be useful to avoid the diagnostic chimera of borderline personality disorder, a condition that defies proper classification.

Does interpersonal dependency affect therapeutic outcome? A meta-analytic review

This study examined whether interpersonal dependency affects therapeutic outcome, using meta-analytic techniques to synthesize results from 31 studies (49 effect sizes; overall N = 3807). High levels of dependency were associated with more positive outcome in psychodynamic therapy (r = 0.11, p < 0.05), but not cognitive-behavioural therapy (r = -0.05, ns), and were associated with a less positive outcome in pharmacological treatment (r = -0.15, p < 0.001). Other predictors of outcome included patient diagnosis (high levels of dependency were linked with more positive outcome for patients with anxiety disorders but not those with depression), outcome measure (high levels of dependency were associated with significantly greater improvement in global functioning but not symptom reduction) and dependency measure (cognitive and cognitive-behavioural dependency scales yielded less positive results than other types of measures). These results contribute to a growing body of literature examining effects of personality on treatment process and outcome. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Diagnosis and classification of personality disorders: novel approaches

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update of the recent studies, which have evaluated the radical changes in personality disorder classification in DSM-5 and ICD-11.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the DSM-5 Committee rejected the personality disorders Work Group proposal for personality disorder classification, the model was published in DSM-5 Section III. This Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) has been widely adopted by the research community resulting in multiple studies evaluating its reliability and clinical utility. The ICD-11 Personality Classification has recently been accepted by the WHO and is also receiving increasing study. Both models emphasize personality disorder severity, which most studies report is consistently linked to impairment and outcome. Both models propose five descriptive domains, which appear to capture most of the current personality disorder diagnoses, and can also be linked to disease extremes of normal personality such as the Five Factor Model.

SUMMARY

The changes in DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 represent a significant paradigm shift in the diagnosis of personality disorders. Early research suggests that the changes may be beneficial for clinicians and researchers. The models more closely align with the large body of literature supporting dimensional models of normal personality. The severity dimensions are consistent with the large body of evidence that personality disorder severity is a strong determinant of impairment and outcome. It remains to be seen if clinicians will use the classification to plan and predict treatment for a wide range of mental disorders.

Accurate recording of personality disorder in clinical practice

SummaryDisturbances of personality are recorded very poorly in official statistics, but there are signs that this is changing. For many years, personality disorder has been either regarded as a secondary diagnosis that can be forgotten in the presence of another mental disorder, or avoided as the diagnosis gives the impression of untreatability or stigma. What is now abundantly clear is that under-diagnosis of personality disorder represents a disservice to patients and practitioners. It prevents a proper understanding of the longitudinal course of psychiatric disorder and an appreciation of some of the positive aspects of abnormal personality that can be used in treatment. We must no longer bury personality disorder, ostrich-like, in the diagnostic sand. It is there for the asking and needs to be embraced honestly and without fear if we are to improve the management of psychiatric patients.Declaration of interestNone.

Predictive Utility of Personality Disorder in Depression: Comparison of Outcomes and Taxonomic Approach

There is debate around the best model for diagnosing personality disorder, both in terms of its relationship to the empirical data and clinical utility. Four randomized controlled trials examining various treatments for depression were analyzed at an individual patient level. Three different approaches to the diagnosis of personality disorder were analyzed in these patients. A total of 578 depressed patients were included in the analysis. Personality disorder, however measured, was of little predictive utility in the short term but added significantly to predictive modelling of mediumterm outcomes, accounting for more than twice as much of the variance in social functioning outcome as depression psychopathology. Personality disorder assessment is of predictive utility with longer timeframes and when considering social outcomes as opposed to symptom counts. This utility is sufficiently great that there appears to be value in assessing personality; however, no particular approach outperforms any other.

The clinical trajectory of patients with borderline personality disorder

OBJECTIVE

The epidemiological data on the diagnostic course of patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) is limited. We used a nationwide register to investigate the diagnostic stability and changes over time.

METHOD

The Danish nationwide registers were used to follow all patients with a diagnosis of BPD and investigate their first-ever psychiatric diagnosis and their latest diagnosis in the time period of 1995-2012. From this, we found the diagnostic stability and described the diagnostic changes.

RESULTS

A total of 10 786 patients diagnosed with BPD were identified. The prospective diagnostic stabilities were 37% for females and 25% for males, and retrospective stabilities were 20% for females and 22% for males. More than 60% of patients received other diagnoses than BPD as their first-ever diagnosis. Stress-related (17%) and depressive disorders (14%) were most frequent as first-ever diagnosis. The latest diagnosis remained BPD in nearly half of females and one third of males, followed by schizophrenia, notably for those with longer follow-up and males.

CONCLUSION

This study gives a detailed display of complicated clinical trajectories. The low diagnostic stabilities demonstrate a heterogenous patient group diagnosed with many other psychiatric diagnoses over time. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.