↓ Skip to main content

Analyzing subcomponents of affective dysregulation in borderline personality disorder in comparison to other clinical groups using multiple e-diary datasets

Overview of attention for article published in Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analyzing subcomponents of affective dysregulation in borderline personality disorder in comparison to other clinical groups using multiple e-diary datasets
Published in
Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40479-016-0039-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. S. Santangelo, M. F. Limberger, C. Stiglmayr, M. Houben, J. Coosemans, G. Verleysen, P. Kuppens, F. Tuerlinckx, W. Vanpaemel, U. W. Ebner-Priemer

Abstract

Affective dysregulation is widely regarded as being the core problem in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Moreover, BPD is the disorder mainly associated with affective dysregulation. However, the empirical confirmation of the specificity of affective dysregulation for BPD is still pending. We used a validated approach from basic affective science that allows for simultaneously analyzing three interdependent components of affective dysregulation that are disturbed in patients with BPD: homebase, variability, and attractor strength (return to baseline). We applied two types of multilevel models on two e-diary datasets to investigate group differences regarding three subcomponents between BPD patients (n = 43; n = 51) and patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; n = 28) and those with bulimia nervosa (BN; n = 20) as clinical control groups in dataset 1, and patients with panic disorder (PD; n = 26) and those with major depression (MD; n = 25) as clinical control groups in dataset 2. In addition, healthy controls (n = 28; n = 40) were included in the analyses. In both studies, e-diaries were used to repeatedly collect data about affective experiences during participants' daily lives. In study 1 a high-frequency sampling strategy with assessments in 15 min-intervals over 24 h was applied, whereas the assessments occurred every waking hour over 48 h in study 2. The local ethics committees approved both studies, and all participants provided written informed consent. In contradiction to our hypotheses, BPD patients did not consistently show altered affective dysregulation compared to the clinical patient groups. The only differences in affective dynamics in BPD patients emerged with regard to one of three subcomponents, affective homebase. However, these results were not even consistent. Conversely, comparing the patients to healthy controls revealed a pattern of more negative affective homebases, higher levels of affective variability, and (partially) reduced returns to baseline in the patient groups. Our results indicate that affective dysregulation constitutes a transdiagnostic mechanism that manifests in similar ways in several different mental disorders. We point out promising prospects that might help to elucidate the common and distinctive mechanisms that underlie several different disorders and that should be addressed in future studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Student > Master 7 19%
Unspecified 6 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 47%
Unspecified 9 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,732,479
of 8,170,298 outputs
Outputs from Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation
#39
of 56 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,436
of 260,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,170,298 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 56 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.