This page was translated automatically from Turkish. Read the original

This page is an AI-assisted Turkish summary of the study presented at the 26th World Congress of Psychiatry. The study belongs to the presenting authors; please refer to the original source when citing it.

EV1006

Mental health professionals’ attitudes toward patients with borderline personality disorder and potential ways to improve these attitudes

PSYCHIATRIC PROVIDERS ’ATTITUDES TOWARD PATIENTS WITH BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER AND POSSIBLE WAYS TO IMPROVE THEM.

Positive transference toward patients with borderline personality disorder was most pronounced among other healthcare professionals, while nurses and physicians showed more limited empathy and a pattern of greater negative affect.

The aim was to assess the attitudes of mental health professionals working with patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) in inpatient units and to discuss ways to improve these attitudes. In an observational study, an adapted version of the 37-item Attitude to Personality Disorder Questionnaire (APDQ) was administered to 139 psychiatrists, residents, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, recreational and art therapists, and psychologists. Participants were reported as 36 men, 97 women, and 6 identifying as other; their workplaces comprised an academic center and a state hospital. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) by professional group revealed significant differences in positive transference scores (p = 0.013), with the highest mean in the other healthcare professionals group; the total score for lack of valid difficulties was higher among nurses than among other healthcare professionals (p = 0.022). Among the emotional subscales, significant differences between professional groups were found in anger/irritability (p = 0.041) and respect (p = 0.038), but not in helplessness/hopelessness (p = 0.131), protectiveness (p = 0.095), or curiosity (p = 0.116). There were no significant differences between professional groups in negative transference (p = 0.174), neutral items (p = 0.230), or fear (p = 0.552); grouping participants by gender and length of service in an inpatient unit likewise revealed no significant differences in responses to emotional states. The authors note that training specific to this patient population is limited and that the angry victim state evokes feelings of irritation, being used, and being manipulated in staff, leading to retaliatory behavior in the form of invalidating comments and limit-setting. The proposed intervention involves educating staff about this emotional state and using role-play to practice alternative responses that reflect the patient’s grandiosity and are grounded in experiential acceptance; this unexpected response is reported to interrupt the destructive pattern and reduce agitation.

All WCP 2026 summaries