Constructivist Simultaneous Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder, Trauma, and Addiction Comorbidity: A Qualitative Case Study
Abstract
This qualitative case study explored one client's recovery from borderline personality disorder, trauma, and problem gambling. The client attended 18 months of integrative treatment and was followed for 5 years. The study included 106 data points of both client and therapist data. We identified three phases to treatment. First, alliance formation and normalization appeared as mechanisms, and the client experienced dependence. Second, working alliance and countertransference appeared as mechanisms, and the client experienced reduced gambling and suicidal ideation. Third, external controls and increased opportunity appeared as mechanisms, and "moving into the world" was the client experience. The findings give preliminary support to a phase-based constructivist treatment including trauma assessment to normalize self-feelings, countertransference work to support motivation for restraint, and case management principles to support continuity of change efforts.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Johansen et al. (2017) described in a case study how recovery moved via three phases, from attachment and dependence on a therapist, through working level headed together, to moving autonomously on "into the world."
“Last, in an in-depth case study of one individual’s recovery journey over 5 years, Johansen et al. (2017) describe how recovery moved via three phases, from attachment and dependence on a therapist, through working level headed together, to moving autonomously on “into the world.””
From Moving toward connectedness – a qualitative study of recovery processes for people with borderline personality disorder (2019) · cites this paper as Johansen et al. (2017)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 65 · Cited by 9
- Authors
- Johansen, A. B., Tavakoli, S., Bjelland, I., & Lumley, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Northeastern Illinois University (US)
- Wayne State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Johansen, Ayna B.
- Venue
- Qualitative Health Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-07-11
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 236-248
- ISSN
- 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7557
- OpenAlex
- W2220428184
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Keywords
- borderline personality disorder, trauma, problem gambling, substance use comorbidity, constructivist therapy, integrative psychotherapy, treatment phases, therapeutic relationship, countertransference, external control, suicidal ideation, case management
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Borderline Personality Disorder, Female, Gambling, Humans, Motivation, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Behavior, Addictive, Qualitative Research, Suicidal Ideation, Sense of Coherence
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