Crisis-focused psychosocial interventions for borderline personality disorder: systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND: Mental health crisis presentations are common in those who have a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD), and psychosocial interventions should be provided. However, there is limited evidence outlining what a crisis-focused psychosocial intervention for this population should include. AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and narrative synthesis of crisis-focused psychosocial interventions for people diagnosed with BPD. METHOD: Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo) were searched for eligible studies. Studies were included if they were quantitative studies comparing a crisis-focused intervention with any control group and they included adults (18+ years of age) who were diagnosed with BPD (or with equivalent experiences). A narrative synthesis was undertaken to analyse results. RESULTS: A total of 3711 papers were initially identified, 95 full texts were screened and 5 studies were included in the review. Two of five studies reported on the same trial, so four individual trials were included. Overall moderate risk of bias across studies was identified. The review tentatively demonstrated that crisis-focused psychosocial interventions are feasible and acceptable to people with BPD and that they have potential impacts on outcomes such as self-harm and number of days spent in hospital. There is limited consensus on what outcome measures should be used to assess the impact of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is presently insufficient data to recommend any specific psychosocial crisis intervention for people with BPD. Given the relationship between BPD and the high frequency of crises experienced by this group, further large-scale trials examining crisis-focused psychosocial interventions are required. STATEMENT ON LANGUAGE: We acknowledge that the term personality disorder can be controversial and stigmatising. As the term borderline personality disorder has been retained in DSM-5 and is used in the research evidence base we have decided to use this term throughout this review. However, we recognise that this term may not be acceptable to all.