Observational studyBMC psychiatry2026
Implementation and outcomes of a brief crisis intervention for adolescents with borderline personality features: a pre-post observational study.
Observational study in BMC psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuicide is one of the leading causes of death among young people. Borderline personality features have been identified as a risk factor for suicide-related behaviour among adolescents. Targeted brief interventions may facilitate early identification and intervention.
methodsA single-group pre-post observational study design examined implementation of a brief crisis intervention (Gold Card SA) for adolescents aged 12–17 years-of-age, delivered in outpatient hospital and community mental health settings. The intervention offered up to three weekly psychologically focussed sessions to explore goals and values, provide psychoeducation and develop a collaborative care plan. A fourth session was offered to the adolescent’s nominated support person. We examined patient-reported outcome measures collected at the first and final appointment and service outcomes (e.g., acute mental-health service utilisation comparing the 6-months pre- and postintervention). We also considered our findings in light of early implication indicators such as acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, penetration and sustainability.
resultsOne-hundred and fifty-five adolescents consented for their outcomes to be evaluated (12–15-year-olds n = 46; 16–17-year-olds n = 109). Borderline features were high among adolescents attending their initial Gold Card SA appointment. The incidence of emergency department presentations in the 6-months postintervention was 90% lower relative to the 6-months beforehand (95% CI [0.05, 0.18]; p < .001). Adolescents who completed the intervention demonstrated a significant reduction in perceived burdensomeness (12–15 years, dav = 0.31, p = .001; 16–17 years old, dav = 0.51, p < .001) and psychosocial dysfunction (12–15 years, dav = 0.31, p = .006; 16–17 years old, dav = 0.31, p = .01). Adolescents aged 16–17 years also reported significant reduction in borderline symptom severity (dav = 0.89, p < .001) and the likelihood of engaging in deliberate self-harm (Exp (B) = 0.86, p = .03) pre- and postintervention.
conclusionsA brief intervention model such as Gold Card SA, embedded within a public mental health setting, may support adolescents and their families during crisis. Screening for borderline personality features at this time may facilitate early intervention whereby at-risk adolescents are offered additional intervention via a broader stepped model of care. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.