Service user experiences of mentalisation-based treatment for borderline personality disorder.
Open accessAbstract
Purpose Previous research indicates that mentalisation-based treatment (MBT) is an effective therapeutic programme for difficulties associated with borderline personality disorder (BPD). The purpose of this paper is to explore service user experiences of the therapy. Design/methodology/approach Seven adults (five female and two male), recruited via three NHS trusts, were interviewed. Participants were attending intensive out-patient MBT for BPD between 3 and 14 months. Data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Findings Participants experienced the group component of MBT as challenging and unpredictable. They highlighted developing trust as key to benefitting from MBT. This was much more difficult to achieve in group sessions than in individual therapy, particularly for those attending MBT for less than five or six months. The structure of MBT generally worked well for participants but they identified individual therapy as the core component in achieving change. All participants learned to view the world more positively due to MBT. Practical implications Enhanced mentalisation capacity may help address specific challenges associated with BPD, namely, impulsivity and interpersonal difficulties. MBT therapists are confronted with the ongoing task of creating a balance between sufficient safety and adequate challenge during MBT. Potential benefits and drawbacks of differing structural arrangements of MBT programmes within the UK are considered. Originality/value Learning about service user perspectives has facilitated an enhanced understanding of experiences of change during MBT in addition to specific factors that may impact mentalisation capacity throughout the programme. These factors, in addition to implications for MBT and suggestions for future research, are discussed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
A majority of the existing first-person studies focus on how persons diagnosed with BPD experience specific intervention strategies, such as music therapy, specific group therapy, and MBT.
“However, a majority of the existing studies focus on how persons diagnosed with BPD experience specific intervention strategies, such as music therapy (Strehlow and Lindner, 2016), specific group therapy (Sagen Inderhaug and Karterud, 2015), and MBT (Lonargáin et al., 2017).”
From Moving toward connectedness – a qualitative study of recovery processes for people with borderline personality disorder (2019) · cites this paper as Lonargáin et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 23
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Allen, J. G., Fonagy, P. and Bateman, A. (2008), Mentalizing in Clinical Practice (1 st ed.), American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., Arlington, VA, London.
- Bateman, A. W. and Fonagy, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Mentalizing in Mental Health Practice, American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC, London, pp. 67-80.
- Bowlby, J. (1973), Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2, Separation Anxiety and Anger, Basic Books, New York.
- Karterud, F. and Bateman, A. W. (2012), "Group therapy techniques", in Bateman, A. W. and Fonagy, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Mentalizing in Mental Health Practice, American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc, Washington, DC, London, England, pp. 81-105.
- Omar, H., Tejerina-Arreal, M. and Crawford, M. J. (2014), "Are recommendations for psychological treatment of borderline personality disorder in current UK guidelines justified? Systematic review and sub-group analysis", Personality and Mental Health, Vo. 8 No. 3, pp. 228-237.
- Authors
- Lonargáin, D. Ó., Hodge, S., & Line, R.
- Affiliations
- Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Lancaster University (GB)
- ORCID
- Hodge, Suzanne
- Venue
- Mental Health Review Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2017-03-13
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-27
- ISSN
- 1361-9322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2589907040
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- eprints.lancs.ac.uk
- Locations
- Mental Health Review Journal (publishedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- mentalization-based treatment, borderline personality disorder, service user experiences, group therapy, individual psychotherapy, therapeutic trust, impulsivity, interpersonal problems
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