McLean Study Of Adult Development Research Articles

Increasing Prevalence of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder.

While research has shown that the prevalence of ADHD in the general population has increased over time, there have been no studies focused on ADHD prevalence in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study compares two cohorts of adults with rigorously diagnosed BPD recruited nearly three decades apart (1992 vs. 2020). Participants from the 1992 McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD) (N = 290) and the 2020 Flourishing study (N = 147) were assessed for ADHD using DSM-III-R and DSM-5 criteria respectively. Compared to MSAD subjects, the prevalence of ADHD among Flourishing subjects was significantly higher overall, and in female (but not male) subjects. This increased prevalence, which is likely due to the broadening of the DSM criteria over time, highlights what many observers believe to be a problematic expansion of the diagnostic criteria for ADHD that may have decoupled this criteria set from capturing a neurodevelopmental disorder that typically begins in childhood.

Longitudinal description and prediction of physical inactivity among patients with borderline personality disorder and personality-disordered comparison subjects

BackgroundThe physical and psychological benefits of physical activity are well-known, and physical activity has been proven to be a helpful adjunct to psychotherapeutic treatment for many symptomatic disorders, including mood and anxiety disorders. The current study explores physical inactivity levels in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). The first aim of this study is to describe the 12-year course of physical inactivity in patients with BPD. The second aim is to examine predictors of physical inactivity, including adversity experiences, comorbid symptomatic (formerly axis I) disorders, medical disorders, and demographic factors.MethodsTwo hundred and forty-five patients with BPD were interviewed seven times over 12-years of prospective follow-up as part of the McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD). Patients were categorized as ever-recovered (i.e., patient had experienced a symptomatic and psychosocial recovery from BPD) or never-recovered. At each follow-up, patients reported physical activity levels (minutes of exercise per week) via a semi-structured interview— the Medical History and Services Utilization Interview (MHSUI). Data was collected from June 1992 to December 2018.ResultsNever-recovered patients with BPD were significantly more inactive than their ever-recovered counterparts (p < 0.001). These rates of inactivity remained stable over time for both groups. Two significant multivariate predictors of inactivity were found: obesity (p = 0.003) and PTSD (p < 0.001).ConclusionsNon-recovered BPD patients are more likely to be inactive than patients who have recovered. Both clinical and medical factors appear to contribute to inactivity levels in patients with BPD.

Experiential avoidance in participants with borderline personality disorder and other personality disorders

BackgroundThe present study has descriptive and predictive aims. The descriptive aims were to determine if participants with borderline personality disorder (BPD) reported higher levels of experiential avoidance (EA) than participants with other personality disorders (OPD) as well as determine if non-recovered participants with BPD reported higher levels of EA than participants with BPD who have recovered symptomatically and psychosocially. The predictive aim was to determine if the level of EA reported by participants with BPD was predicted by the severity of aspects of childhood or adult adversity and/or aspects of temperament.MethodsThe Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) was administered to 248 participants at 24-year follow-up in the McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD). Adversity and temperament were assessed during index admission using interviews (Revised Childhood Experience Questionnaire [CEQ-R], Adult History Interview [AHI], and the NEO-FFI self-report measure).ResultsParticipants with BPD reported significantly higher levels of EA than those with OPD. Within the BPD group, non-recovered participants reported significantly higher levels of EA than recovered participants. Severity of childhood sexual abuse and lower levels of extraversion were found to be significant multivariate predictors of levels of EA in those with BPD.ConclusionsTaken together, these results suggest that EA is a serious problem for participants with BPD, particularly those who have not recovered. They also suggest that both the severity of childhood adversity and a temperament marked by lower levels of extroversion are significantly related to levels of EA reported by participants with BPD.

Treatment rates for patients with borderline personality disorder and other personality disorders: a 16-year study.

The goal of this study was to document the use of 16 treatment modalities reported by 290 patients with borderline personality disorder and 72 patients with other axis II disorders over 16 years of prospective follow-up. This study built upon previous findings of the McLean Study of Adult Development. Treatment use was assessed at baseline and at eight two-year follow-up periods with a semistructured interview of proven reliability and validity. Patients with borderline personality disorder reported significantly higher rates of use of 12 of the 16 treatment modalities studied. Only four of the 16 treatment modalities were used by roughly the same percentage of patients with borderline personality disorder and those with other axis II disorders: individual therapy, intensive individual therapy, couples or family therapy, and electroconvulsive therapy. In addition, rates of participation in 13 treatment modalities declined significantly over the first eight years of follow-up for those in both study groups. However, the rates of participation in 15 of 16 treatment modalities did not decline significantly over the second eight years of follow-up for those in either study group. The results of this study suggest that rates of treatment use by patients with borderline personality disorder decline significantly over the short and medium term. They also suggest that these rates remain stable or fail to decline further over the longer term.

Prevalence and risk factors for irritable bowel syndrome in recovered and non-recovered borderline patients over 10 years of prospective follow-up.

This study examined rates of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) over 10 years of prospective follow-up among recovered and non-recovered patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Subsequently, risk factors for IBS were examined in female BPD patients. As part of the McLean Study of Adult Development, 264 BPD patients were assessed at baseline, and their medical conditions and time-varying predictors of IBS were assessed over five waves of follow-up (from 6-year follow-up to 16-year follow-up). Semi-structured interviews were used to assess both our IBS outcome variable and our baseline and time-varying predictor variables. Rates of IBS were not significantly different between recovered and non-recovered borderline patients when men and women were considered together and when men were considered alone. However, a significant difference in IBS rates was found between recovered and non-recovered female BPD patients, with the latter reporting significantly higher rates. The rates of IBS in women with BPD were found to be significantly predicted by a family history of IBS and a childhood history of verbal, emotional and/or physical abuse. Taken together, the results of this study suggest that both biological/social learning factors and childhood adversity may be risk factors for IBS in women with BPD.

Relationship between maladaptive cognitions about sleep and recovery in patients with borderline personality disorder

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) has been associated with maladaptive cognitive processes including dysfunctional attitudes and a negative attribution style. Comorbid insomnia affects the course of multiple psychiatric disorders, and has been associated with the absence of recovery from BPD. Because dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes are common among patients with insomnia, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between maladaptive sleep-related cognitions and recovery status (symptomatic remission plus good concurrent psychosocial functioning) in patients with BPD. Two hundred and twenty three BPD patients participating in the McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD) were administered the Dysfunctional Beliefs and Attitudes about Sleep questionnaire (DBAS-16) as part of the 16-year follow-up wave. Maladaptive sleep cognitions were compared between recovered (n=105) and non-recovered (n=118) BPD participants, in analyses that adjusted for age, sex, depression, anxiety, and primary sleep disorders. Results demonstrated that non-recovered BPD patients had significantly more severe maladaptive sleep-related cognitions as measured by the overall DBAS-16 score. These results demonstrate an association between dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes about sleep and recovery status among BPD patients. Further research is warranted to evaluate treatments targeted towards maladaptive sleep-related cognitions, and their subsequent effects on the course of BPD.

Relationship between sleep disturbance and recovery in patients with borderline personality disorder

ObjectivePatients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) frequently experience sleep disturbance, however, the role of sleep quality in the course of BPD is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cross-sectional association between sleep quality and recovery status (symptomatic remission plus good concurrent psychosocial functioning) in a well-characterized cohort of patients with BPD to examine the role of sleep disturbance in the course of the disorder. Methods223 patients with BPD participating in the McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD) were administered the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) as part of the 16-year follow-up wave. Sleep quality was compared between recovered (n=105) and non-recovered (n=118) BPD participants, including adjustment for age, sex, depression, anxiety, and primary sleep disorders. ResultsNon-recovered BPD patients had significantly worse sleep quality than recovered BPD participants as measured by the global PSQI score (adjusted means 12.01 vs. 10.73, p=0.03). In addition, non-recovered BPD participants had longer sleep onset latency (adjusted means 39.20 vs. 28.11minutes, p=0.04), as well as increased odds of using sleeping medication (adjusted OR 1.49, p=0.009) and experiencing daytime dysfunction as a result of their sleep disturbance (adjusted OR 1.48, p=0.008). ConclusionThese results demonstrate an association between subjective sleep disturbance and recovery status among BPD patients. Further research is indicated to evaluate the mechanisms underlying sleep disturbance in BPD, and whether treatment of sleep complaints improves the symptomatic and psychosocial course of the disorder.

The course of substance use disorders in patients with borderline personality disorder and Axis II comparison subjects: a 10‐year follow‐up study

The purpose of this study is to detail the course of substance use disorders (SUDs) over 10 years of prospective follow-up among patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and Axis II comparison subjects. This study uses data from the McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD), a multi-faceted study of the longitudinal course of BPD using reliable repeated measures administered every 2 years over a decade of prospective follow-up. All subjects were initially in-patients at McLean Hospital in Belmont Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS; A total of 290 patients with BPD and 72 Axis II comparison subjects were assessed at baseline and five waves of follow-up. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Axis I Disorders (SCID-I), the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R) and the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders (DIPD-R) were administered six times. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess longitudinal prevalence of SUDs. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess time-to-remission, recurrence and new onsets of SUDs. The prevalence of SUDs among borderline patients and Axis II comparison subjects declined significantly over time, while remaining significantly more common among those with BPD. More than 90% of borderline patients meeting criteria for a SUD at baseline experienced a remission by 10-year follow-up. Recurrences and new onsets of SUDs were less common (35-40% and 21-23%). Remissions of alcohol and drug abuse/dependence among borderline patients are both common and relatively stable. Results also suggest that new onsets of these disorders are less common than might be expected.

Recovery From Borderline Personality Disorder

Recovery From Borderline Personality Disorder

Ten-Year Use of Mental Health Services by Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder and With Other Axis II Disorders

Clinical experience suggests that individuals with borderline personality disorder commonly report being in psychotherapy and taking standing psychotropic medications over substantial periods of time. Clinical experience also suggests that patients with borderline personality disorder are frequently rehospitalized. However, only two longitudinal studies have prospectively examined the long-term course of the psychiatric treatment received by these patients. In the first of these studies [1], treatment utilization of patients with borderline personality disorder and axis II comparison participants was studied over six years of prospective follow-up in the McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD). It was found that prevalence rates of individual therapy, standing medications, and psychiatric hospitalizations declined significantly for those in both study groups but remained significantly higher among patients with borderline personality disorder than axis II comparison participants. Perhaps most striking was the finding that 70% of patients with borderline personality disorder participated in individual therapy and 70% took standing medications in all three follow-up periods. In the second longitudinal study (the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study or CLPS), the treatment use of patients with borderline personality disorder was compared to that of patients with major depressive disorder and no personality disorder over the course of three years [2]. It was found that patients with borderline personality disorder were significantly more likely to be in individual therapy, have had a medication consultation, and been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons than those with major depressive disorder. The current study, which is an extension of the MSAD study mentioned above, has two purposes. The first is to describe the prevalence of three key treatment modalities reported by a large and well-defined sample of patients with borderline personality disorder and axis II comparison participants over 10 years of prospective follow-up. The second purpose is to detail time-to-cessation and time-to-resumption of these three forms of treatment by patients with borderline personality disorder.

Ten-Year Use of Mental Health Services by Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder and With Other Axis II Disorders

The study determined the prevalence of use of three treatment modalities (individual therapy, medication, and hospitalization) reported over a ten-year period by patients with borderline personality disorder and by those in a comparison group with other axis II disorders. Time to cessation and time to resumption for each modality among patients with borderline personality disorder were also determined. Treatment history of inpatients with a reliable diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (N=290) and of other axis II disorders (N=72) was assessed with an interview of proven reliability during the index admission. Treatment history was reassessed at two-year intervals for ten years. For all three treatment modalities, prevalence of use declined significantly among patients with borderline personality disorder and among those in the comparison group. Among patients with borderline personality disorder, 52% reported having stopped individual therapy and 44% reported having stopped medication at one or more of the follow-up interviews over ten years. However, 85% of those who had stopped psychotherapy and 67% of those who stopped taking medication resumed these treatments during a subsequent two-year period. In contrast, 88% had experienced at least one two-year period without a psychiatric hospitalization by the time of the ten-year follow-up; however, almost half of these patients were subsequently rehospitalized. The results suggest that patients with borderline personality disorder tend to use outpatient treatments without interruption over prolonged periods. They also suggest that inpatient treatment is used far more intermittently by patients with borderline personality disorder.

The McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD): Overview and Implications of the First Six Years of Prospective Follow-Up

The McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD) began 12 years ago. It is the first NIMH-funded prospective study of the course and outcome of borderline personality disorder (BPD). After careful analysis of the first six years of follow-up, 5 main findings concerning the symptomatic and psychosocial course of BPD have emerged from this study. The first finding is that remissions are far more common than previously recognized (about 74%). The second is that these remissions are quite stable and thus, recurrences are quite rare (about 6%). The third finding is that completed suicides are far more rare than anticipated (about 4% vs. 10%). The fourth finding is that a "complex" model of borderline psychopathology best describes BPD. In this model, some symptoms resolve relatively quickly, are the best markers for the disorder, and are often the immediate reason for needing costly forms of treatment, such as psychiatric hospitalizations. We termed these symptoms (e.g., self-mutilation, help-seeking suicide threats or attempts) acute symptoms. Other symptoms resolve more slowly, are not specific to BPD, and are closely associated with ongoing psychosocial impairment. We termed such symptoms (e.g., chronic feelings of intense anger, profound abandonment concerns) temperamental symptoms. Fifth, it was also found that borderline patients were improving psychosocially over time, particularly remitted borderline patients; psychosocial functioning of remitted patients continued to improve as time progressed, suggesting that they were somewhat belatedly achieving the milestones of young adulthood and not simply returning to a prodromal level of functioning. Taken together, these results suggest that the prognosis for BPD is better than previously recognized.

CIC, CLPS, and MSAD

The purpose of this article is to provide a commentary on the reports of the findings from the longitudinal Children in the Community (CIC) study by Cohen, Crawford, Johnson, and Kasen (this issue), Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS) by Skodol et al. (this issue), and McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD) by Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen, Reich, and Silk (this issue). This article focuses in particular on the implications of their longitudinal findings with regard to a fundamental component of personality disorder: temporal stability. Also discussed are their findings with regard to an integration of general personality structure with personality disorder.

Changing Views About Personality Disorders: Comment About the Prospective Studies CIC, CLPS, and MSAD

Three large-scale prospective studies (Children in the Community Study [CIC; Cohen, Crawford, Johnson, & Kasen, this issue], Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study [CLPS; Skodol et al., this issue], and the McLean Study of Adult Development [MSAD; Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen, Reich, & Silk, this issue]) are discussed with respect to the following issues: shared and complementary features of the study designs, evidence for stable and changing personality disorder features, methodological issues (reliability, stability, and invariance), the relationship between Axis I and II disorders, and dimensional versus categorical representations of personality disorders.

Progress and Innovation: Personality Disorders and the Vanguard of Psychopathology Research

Important progress in our understanding of the natural course of personality disorders (PDs) is documented in the articles for this special section. This progress could set the stage for ideas developed in the study of PDs to play a central role in research on psychopathology more broadly conceived. The Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (Skodol et al., this issue), the Children in the Community Study (Cohen, Crawford, Johnson, & Kasen, this issue), and the McLean Study of Adult Development (Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen, Reich, & Silk, this issue) reveal the importance of personality in understanding psychopathology, and point toward a dimensional approach to conceptualizing psychopathology that could also frame categorical clinical decision making processes.

Taxonomic Implications of Three Prospective Studies on the Course and Outcome of Personality Disorders

The Children in the Community (CIC) Study (Cohen, Crawford, Johnson, & Kasen, this issue), the McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD; Zanarini, Frankenburg, Hennen, Reich, & Silk, this issue), and the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS; Skodol et al., this issue) are three large prospective studies on the course and outcome of psychiatric disorders, borderline personality disorder, and personality disorders, respectively. These studies, involving approximately 2,000 subjects, have yielded an enormous amount of scientifically and clinically relevant information. In this commentary, I primarily aim to discuss the implications for future revisions to the DSM classification of personality disorders.