Cited by 173Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Treatment completion in psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder - a systematic review and meta-analysis: Treatment completion in BPD

Barnicot, K., Katsakou, C., Marougka, S., Priebe, S.·2011·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD) has been associated with problematically low treatment completion rates. METHOD: PsycInfo and Medline were systematically searched to identify studies providing information on treatment completion in psychotherapy models that have been shown to be effective for BPD. A meta-analysis of treatment completion rates and a narrative analysis of factors predicting dropout were conducted. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included, with completion rates ranging from 36% to 100%- a substantial between-study heterogeneity. Random effects meta-analyses yielded an overall completion rate of 75% (95% CI: 68-82%) for interventions of <12 months duration, and 71% (95% CI: 65-76%) for longer interventions. Egger's test for publication bias was significant for both analyses (P ≤ 0.01). Study characteristics such as treatment model and treatment setting did not explain between-study heterogeneity. In individual studies, factors predicting dropout status included commitment to change, the therapeutic relationship and impulsivity, whilst sociodemographics were consistently non-predictive. CONCLUSION: Borderline personality disorder should no longer be associated with high rates of dropout from treatment. However, the substantial variation in completion rates between studies remains unexplained. Research on the psychological processes involved in dropping out of treatment could further improve dropout rates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01652.x

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 86 · Cited by 173

Authors
Barnicot, K., Katsakou, C., Marougka, S., & Priebe, S.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Barnicot, K.
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-19
Volume
123
Issue
5
Pages
327-338
ISSN
0001-690X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1547709985
Cited by
173
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (DRF-2009-02-11)
  • National Institutes of Health
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, treatment completion, treatment discontinuation, predictors of dropout, therapeutic relationship, impulsivity, commitment to change, treatment setting
MeSH terms
Borderline Personality Disorder, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Long-Term Care, Patient Compliance, Patient Dropouts, Psychotherapy, Risk Factors, Psychotherapeutic Processes, Process Assessment, Health Care, Publication Bias

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