ArticleBMC psychiatry2022
Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence and severity of loneliness and deficits in perceived social support among who have received a 'personality disorder' diagnosis or have relevant traits: a systematic review.BMC psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Crisis and acute mental health care for people who have been given a diagnosis of a 'personality disorder': a systematic review.BMC psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of outpatient and community treatments for people with a diagnosis of 'personality disorder': systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of international guidance for the community treatment of 'personality disorders': A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- A service evaluation of 'IDEAS' - Modular treatment for youth with complex emotional needs.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
- Experiences of loneliness among people with a diagnosis of 'personality disorder': A qualitative interview study in the UK.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- A shift or a substitution? On naming, exclusion, and co-production in longstanding eating disorders: matters arising from Lubieniecki et al. (2025).Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Borderline personality disorder Athens study: a quasi-experimental pragmatic trial for the assessment of a public, psychodynamic, stepped care service for borderline personality disorder patients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproving the quality of care in community settings for people with 'Complex Emotional Needs' (CEN-our preferred working term for services for people with a "personality disorder" diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. The final search was conducted in November 2020.
resultsWe included 226 papers in all (210 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people's lives, peer support, or ways of designing effective services.
conclusionsCompared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be helped when specialist therapies are available and when they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.