Prevalence of borderline personality disorder in university samples: Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

Rebecca Meaney, Penelope Hasking, Andrea Reupert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: To determine pooled prevalence of clinically significant traits or features of Borderline Personality Disorder among college students, and explore the influence of methodological factors on reported prevalence figures, and temporal trends. Data Sources: Electronic databases (1994-2014: AMED; Biological Abstracts; Embase; MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES; CINAHL Plus; Current Contents Connect; EBM Reviews; Google Scholar; Ovid Medline; Proquest central; PsychINFO; PubMed; Scopus; Taylor & Francis; Web of Science (1998-2014), and hand searches. Study Selection: Forty-three college-based studies reporting estimates of clinically significant BPD symptoms were identified (5.7% of original search). Data Extraction: One author (RM) extracted clinically relevant BPD prevalence estimates, year of publication, demographic variables, and method from each publication or through correspondence with the authors. Results: The prevalence of BPD in college samples ranged from 0.5% to 32.1%, with lifetime prevalence of 9.7% (95% CI, 7.7- 12.0; p <.005). Methodological factors contributing considerable between-study heterogeneity in univariate meta-analyses were participant anonymity, incentive type, research focus and participant type. Study and sample characteristics related to between study heterogeneity were sample size, and self-identifying as Asian or "other" race. The prevalence of BPD varied over time: 7.8% (95% CI 4.2-13.9) between 1994 and 2000; 6.5% (95% CI 4.0-10.5) during 2001 to 2007; and 11.6% (95% CI 8.8-15.1) from 2008 to 2014, yet was not a source of heterogeneity (p=.09). Conclusions: BPD prevalence estimates are influenced by the methodological or study sample factors measured. There is a need for consistency in measurement across studies to increase reliability in establishing the scope and characteristics of those with BPD engaged in tertiary study.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0155439
Pages (from-to)1-15
Number of pages15
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume11
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2016

Cite this

@article{2cb640a81cf24c988369e57834cfa4b9,
title = "Prevalence of borderline personality disorder in university samples: Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression",
abstract = "Objective: To determine pooled prevalence of clinically significant traits or features of Borderline Personality Disorder among college students, and explore the influence of methodological factors on reported prevalence figures, and temporal trends. Data Sources: Electronic databases (1994-2014: AMED; Biological Abstracts; Embase; MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES; CINAHL Plus; Current Contents Connect; EBM Reviews; Google Scholar; Ovid Medline; Proquest central; PsychINFO; PubMed; Scopus; Taylor & Francis; Web of Science (1998-2014), and hand searches. Study Selection: Forty-three college-based studies reporting estimates of clinically significant BPD symptoms were identified (5.7{\%} of original search). Data Extraction: One author (RM) extracted clinically relevant BPD prevalence estimates, year of publication, demographic variables, and method from each publication or through correspondence with the authors. Results: The prevalence of BPD in college samples ranged from 0.5{\%} to 32.1{\%}, with lifetime prevalence of 9.7{\%} (95{\%} CI, 7.7- 12.0; p <.005). Methodological factors contributing considerable between-study heterogeneity in univariate meta-analyses were participant anonymity, incentive type, research focus and participant type. Study and sample characteristics related to between study heterogeneity were sample size, and self-identifying as Asian or {"}other{"} race. The prevalence of BPD varied over time: 7.8{\%} (95{\%} CI 4.2-13.9) between 1994 and 2000; 6.5{\%} (95{\%} CI 4.0-10.5) during 2001 to 2007; and 11.6{\%} (95{\%} CI 8.8-15.1) from 2008 to 2014, yet was not a source of heterogeneity (p=.09). Conclusions: BPD prevalence estimates are influenced by the methodological or study sample factors measured. There is a need for consistency in measurement across studies to increase reliability in establishing the scope and characteristics of those with BPD engaged in tertiary study.",
author = "Rebecca Meaney and Penelope Hasking and Andrea Reupert",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0155439",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "1--15",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "5",

}

Prevalence of borderline personality disorder in university samples : Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. / Meaney, Rebecca; Hasking, Penelope; Reupert, Andrea.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 11, No. 5, e0155439, 01.05.2016, p. 1-15.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prevalence of borderline personality disorder in university samples

T2 - Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

AU - Meaney, Rebecca

AU - Hasking, Penelope

AU - Reupert, Andrea

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - Objective: To determine pooled prevalence of clinically significant traits or features of Borderline Personality Disorder among college students, and explore the influence of methodological factors on reported prevalence figures, and temporal trends. Data Sources: Electronic databases (1994-2014: AMED; Biological Abstracts; Embase; MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES; CINAHL Plus; Current Contents Connect; EBM Reviews; Google Scholar; Ovid Medline; Proquest central; PsychINFO; PubMed; Scopus; Taylor & Francis; Web of Science (1998-2014), and hand searches. Study Selection: Forty-three college-based studies reporting estimates of clinically significant BPD symptoms were identified (5.7% of original search). Data Extraction: One author (RM) extracted clinically relevant BPD prevalence estimates, year of publication, demographic variables, and method from each publication or through correspondence with the authors. Results: The prevalence of BPD in college samples ranged from 0.5% to 32.1%, with lifetime prevalence of 9.7% (95% CI, 7.7- 12.0; p <.005). Methodological factors contributing considerable between-study heterogeneity in univariate meta-analyses were participant anonymity, incentive type, research focus and participant type. Study and sample characteristics related to between study heterogeneity were sample size, and self-identifying as Asian or "other" race. The prevalence of BPD varied over time: 7.8% (95% CI 4.2-13.9) between 1994 and 2000; 6.5% (95% CI 4.0-10.5) during 2001 to 2007; and 11.6% (95% CI 8.8-15.1) from 2008 to 2014, yet was not a source of heterogeneity (p=.09). Conclusions: BPD prevalence estimates are influenced by the methodological or study sample factors measured. There is a need for consistency in measurement across studies to increase reliability in establishing the scope and characteristics of those with BPD engaged in tertiary study.

AB - Objective: To determine pooled prevalence of clinically significant traits or features of Borderline Personality Disorder among college students, and explore the influence of methodological factors on reported prevalence figures, and temporal trends. Data Sources: Electronic databases (1994-2014: AMED; Biological Abstracts; Embase; MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES; CINAHL Plus; Current Contents Connect; EBM Reviews; Google Scholar; Ovid Medline; Proquest central; PsychINFO; PubMed; Scopus; Taylor & Francis; Web of Science (1998-2014), and hand searches. Study Selection: Forty-three college-based studies reporting estimates of clinically significant BPD symptoms were identified (5.7% of original search). Data Extraction: One author (RM) extracted clinically relevant BPD prevalence estimates, year of publication, demographic variables, and method from each publication or through correspondence with the authors. Results: The prevalence of BPD in college samples ranged from 0.5% to 32.1%, with lifetime prevalence of 9.7% (95% CI, 7.7- 12.0; p <.005). Methodological factors contributing considerable between-study heterogeneity in univariate meta-analyses were participant anonymity, incentive type, research focus and participant type. Study and sample characteristics related to between study heterogeneity were sample size, and self-identifying as Asian or "other" race. The prevalence of BPD varied over time: 7.8% (95% CI 4.2-13.9) between 1994 and 2000; 6.5% (95% CI 4.0-10.5) during 2001 to 2007; and 11.6% (95% CI 8.8-15.1) from 2008 to 2014, yet was not a source of heterogeneity (p=.09). Conclusions: BPD prevalence estimates are influenced by the methodological or study sample factors measured. There is a need for consistency in measurement across studies to increase reliability in establishing the scope and characteristics of those with BPD engaged in tertiary study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84969969912&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0155439

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0155439

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 1

EP - 15

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e0155439

ER -