Patients With Personality Disorders in Everyday Clinical Practice–Implications of the ICD-11

Narcissistic personality disorder in the ICD-11: Severity and trait profiles of grandiosity and vulnerability

Modern diagnostic and classification frameworks such as the ICD-11 and DSM-5-AMPD have adopted a dimensional approach to diagnosing personality disorder using a dual "severity" and "trait" model. As narcissistic personality has historically struggled to be adequately captured in dominant diagnostic systems, this study investigated the utility of the new ICD-11 framework in capturing diverse narcissistic expressions. Participants were mental health clinicians (N = 180, 67% female, age = 38.9), who completed ratings of ICD-11 personality severity, trait domains and a clinical reflection for two hypothetical case vignettes reflecting either prototypical "grandiose" or "vulnerable" narcissism. The majority of clinicians (82%) endorsed a diagnosis of personality disorder for both grandiose and vulnerable vignettes. Discriminant elements of personality impairment included rigid, unrealistically positive self-view, low empathy and high conflict with others for grandiosity, and incoherent identity, low self-esteem and hypervigilant, avoidant relations with others for vulnerability. Regarding trait profile, grandiose narcissism was predominately dissocial whereas vulnerable narcissism was primarily associated with negative affectivity and detachment. Qualitative responses highlight distinct clinical themes for each presentation. These findings suggest that clinicians using the ICD-11 framework are able to identify common core elements of personality dysfunction in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism while also recognizing their distinctive differences.

Diagnosing borderline personality disorder: Reports and recommendations from people with lived experience

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental health condition marked by impairments in self and interpersonal functioning. Stigma from health staff may often result in a reluctance to diagnose, impacting recovery trajectories. Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants (N = 15; M Age = 36.4 years, SD = 7.5; 93.3% female) with lived experience of BPD exploring topics of illness onset, insight, experience of diagnosis and treatment. Qualitative responses were analysed within a co-design framework with a member of the research team who identifies as having a lived experience of BPD. On average, participant symptoms emerged at 12.1 years of age (SD = 6.6 years, range 1.5-27), but diagnoses of BPD were delayed until 30.2 years (SD = 7.8 years, range 18-44) resulting in a 'diagnosis gap' of 18.1 years (SD = 9.6 years, range 3-30). Participant explanations for BPD emergence varied from biological, psychological and social factors. Benefits of diagnosis (e.g., fostering insight, aiding treatment planning and reducing isolation) were contrasted with challenges (e.g., stigma and treatment unavailability). Delay in diagnosis was common, and no participants reported receiving a diagnosis of BPD during their adolescence yet 85% felt they would have benefited from a diagnosis in adolescence. Only a quarter (27%) felt highly supported in the diagnostic process. An ideal four-step diagnosis procedure was outlined based on recommendations from participants with a lived experience; this involved the following: (1) explain the process, (2) assess thoroughly, (3) explore how the features are active in everyday life and (4) link diagnosis to evidence-based treatment planning.