CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 159Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Factors predicting the outcome of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: A systematic review

Barnicot, Kirsten, Katsakou, Christina, Bhatti, Nyla, Savill, Mark, Fearns, Naomi, Priebe, Stefan·2012·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.04.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background There is substantial variation between individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) in the degree of benefit gained from psychotherapy. Information on factors predicting the outcome of therapy for this group could facilitate identification of those at risk for poor outcome, and could enable helpful therapy processes to be identified.Method A systematic search of PsycInfo, EMBASE, CINHAL and Medline identified research on factors predicting symptom change during therapy for patients with a BPD diagnosis. Non-English language papers and dissertations were included.Results Two consistent positive predictors of symptom change were identified: pre-treatment symptom severity and patient-rated therapeutic alliance. Contrary to theories predicting increasing immutability with age, there was no evidence that age predicted poorer outcome.Conclusion More severely ill patients may have greater potential to achieve change during therapy, and should remain a focus for psychotherapy services. The therapeutic alliance is an important common factor predicting outcome in patients with BPD, even in highly disorder-specific treatments. Outcomes may be improved by further clinical and research focus on forming strong therapeutic alliances. The advancement of the field requires identification and testing of new predictors of outcome, especially those related to specific theories of therapeutic change in BPD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.04.004

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous research has recognised the influence of treatment and therapist-related characteristics on treatment outcomes in various disorders, including borderline personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

    “Previous research has recognised the influence of treatment and therapist-related characteristics on treatment outcomes in various disorders, including borderline personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (Barnicot et al., 2012;Knopp, Knowles, Bee, Lovell, & Bower, 2013).”

    From Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review (2016) · cites this paper as Barnicot et al., 2012

  • Identification of client characteristics predictive of successful treatment outcomes can potentially improve efficacy by tailoring interventions to meet individual needs.

    “The identification of client characteristics that are predictive of successful treatment outcomes can potentially improve the efficacy of treatment by tailoring interventions to meet individual needs (Adamson, Sellman, & Frampton, 2009;Barnicot et al., 2012;Daughters, Lejuez, Lesieur, Strong, & Zvolensky, 2003).”

    From Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review (2016) · cites this paper as Barnicot et al., 2012

  • Quality assessment criteria were adapted from those developed by Barnicot et al. (2012).

    “The quality assessment criteria were adapted from those developed by Barnicot et al. (2012) in a systematic review of predictors of treatment outcome in borderline personality disorder.”

    From Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review (2016) · cites this paper as Barnicot et al., 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barnicot, K., Katsakou, C., Bhatti, N., Savill, M., Fearns, N., & Priebe, S.
Affiliations
Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Barnicot, Kirsten
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
400-412
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2012.04.004
OpenAlex
W2098367125
Cited by
159
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (DRF-2009-02-11)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
borderline personality disorder, psychotherapy outcome, predictors of treatment outcome, therapeutic relationship, symptom change
MeSH terms
Borderline Personality Disorder, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychotherapy, Severity of Illness Index, Social Adjustment, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review