Trial reportPloS one2026
Online psychoeducation and assessment for borderline personality disorder as a first step of care: A pilot study assessing safety, feasibility, and mechanisms of change.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05358925 (Online Psychoeducational Videos and Digital Assessments as a Method for Broadening Access to Care for Borderline Personality Disorder), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Online Psychoeducational Videos and Digital Assessments as a Method for Broadening Access to Care for Borderline Personality Disorder
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment guidelines for borderline personality disorder (BPD) recommend assessment, diagnosis, and psychoeducation. We report on the feasibility and safety of a randomized controlled trial protocol of online psychoeducation, assessment, and personalized feedback as an immediate first step of care for BPD.
methodsNewly diagnosed participants were randomized to receive 10 videos about BPD or general mental health for two weeks. Half the participants receiving BPD videos were randomized to receive personalized feedback on changes in symptom ratings and cognitive performance. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) evaluated interpersonal interactions, emotions, and behaviors for 30 days. BPD symptoms, depression, and personality functioning were assessed at baseline, after videos, after feedback, and one month later.
resultsEighty-two participants were randomized into three conditions that did not differ significantly in terms of demographics or baseline variables. Dropout occurred for 32.9% of the sample. No differences in rate of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, or other escalations in level of care were reported among groups. Satisfaction was higher for those receiving psychoeducational videos about BPD. Improvement in BPD knowledge in the psychoeducation conditions was significantly greater than the control condition. No statistically significant differences were found regarding reduction of BPD symptoms. The psychoeducation with feedback arm showed significantly greater improvements in self-impairment compared to controls with medium effect size at the final time-point. Modeling of the relationship between time spent alone and BPD symptoms showed a positive correlation in the control condition, but in the group receiving both psychoeducation about BPD and feedback, this relationship was negative.
conclusionOnline psychoeducational videos and assessment were safe, feasible, and acceptable to participants with newly diagnosed BPD. Psychoeducation with personalized feedback appears to be more effective than either BPD or general psychoeducation alone in improving deficits in self-functioning, which may relate to an increased capacity to be alone with fewer symptoms.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05358925.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.