Case Report | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8868/020
*Corresponding Author: Christa Jennifer, Department of Neuroscience, Pakistan
Citation: Christa Jennifer, Avery Mike, Victor Cutter, Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Borderline Personality and Intellectual Disability, Doi: 10.31579/2578-8868/020
Copyright: © 2017 Christa Jennifer, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of The Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 28 March 2017 | Accepted: 12 April 2017 | Published: 20 April 2017
Keywords: borderline personality disorder; intellectual disability; co-occurring bpd and id
The co-occurrence of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Intellectual Disability (ID) is a sparsely covered area in the literature. This case series looks to describe the common presentations of these two disorders, both commonly presenting with self-harm, impulsivity, and intense anger. Additionally, three treatment courses of individuals with co-occurring ID and BPD will be described, illustrating the commonalities as well as the modifications of BPD treatment for individuals and in adapting ID supports for those with BPD.
Of the 3,028 children, 16% of those without autism or a learning disability had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. And, for children who had autism or a learning disability, only 7% of those given antipsychotics had a psychotic disorder.
Looking further at these records, we found that the children with an intellectual disability or autism were more likely to be given an antipsychotic drug. In fact, 2.8% of the children with an intellectual disability had been prescribed antipsychotics, and 75% of these had autism. By contrast, 0.15% of those without an intellectual disability had been prescribed the medication.
There is little information concerning the prevalence of individuals with intellectual disability (ID) and co-occurring Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). BPD is the “pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-images, and affects” that can affect 6% of the population in the US. While the prevalence of ID is estimated to be about 1% worldwide, the prevalence of co-occurrence of BPD and ID is not well understood the similarities of some of the presenting symptoms of each of these disorders can cause diagnostic confusion. BPD can present with self-injury as deliberate self-harm, and individuals with ID have higher rates of self-injury than the general population. Symptoms of BPD may be attributed to the individual’s disability rather that to the separate entity of BPD in what is described as ‘diagnostic overshadowing’. In addition to the diagnostic difficulty, some authors advise not diagnosing patients with a stigmatized disorder, i.e., BPD, when they have already been diagnosed with ID.
The Diagnostic Manual for Intellectual Disabilities-2 (DM-ID-2) describes several limitations in diagnosing individuals with ID and personality disorders including “[taking] into account personal characteristics in the context of a normal cultural framework” . This could mean a boisterous airing of grievances needing to be interpreted in the context of the patient’s culture. A helpful question could be “Does the patient’s family of origin see the noted behaviors as aberrant or unusual?” DM-ID-2 also suggests that IDD itself may have features in common with personality disorders including impulsivity and difficulty regulating frustration and emotions, and because many people with ID have a protected upbringing, they may have limited experience with social norms and community skills. The DM-ID-2 also suggests the adaptation of moving the age of diagnosis to 22 rather than the DSM-5’s 18 years of age.
The criteria, otherwise, should be met with a “pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity” and also including five of the nine diagnostic criteria including fears of abandonment, chaotic relationships, unstable self-image, potentially harmful impulsivity, suicidal threats or self-injury, affective instability, persisting feelings of emptiness, anger dysregulation, and stress-induced paranoia . Interpersonal hypersensitivity, while not explicitly one of the diagnostic criteria, is considered an intrinsic component of BPD. Because this disorder can also be considered significantly heritable, with around 50% of variance explained by genetic factors, families can benefit from knowing the disorder is not an individual’s “fault..
Case 1- Too many feelings
Ms. A is a 25-year-old black woman with a history of Mild ID and asthma presented for evaluation to the outpatient psychiatric clinic for self-injury. She had previously been administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)-IV with a verbal score of 66 and full scale score of 64. Ms. A reports, “When I get too many feelings, I go crazy. When I get too upset, it’s the only thing that makes me feel better is hurting myself. I mean, I know it’s not good for me, and I try to stop, but it just happens.”
Her team brings her in for increased self-harming. Her mother reports, “She’s always seemed so sensitive—like her feelings get hurt even when people don’t mean it”. Ms. A reports the last significant episode of self-injury occurred when her boyfriend broke up with her at workshop. She reports, “He did it on purpose just to make me mad to try to get me fired”. This demonstrates transient stress-related paranoia and anger dysregulation. When asked if she were more sensitive to interactions with others, she agreed that it felt like it was easy to hurt her feelings. She reports that when her habilitation specialist did not say hi to her first thing in the morning, she “knew” that her habilitation specialist was mad at her. As previously noted, individuals with BPD are sensitive to interpersonal rejection which can precipitate dysphoria and suicidality. When screened for idealization and devaluation, she reported that she tends to love her boyfriends and friends when they first meet until she becomes angry at them for some small or large infraction. She reports that they are then “dead to her.” She reports that she feels that her mood is overly reactive to her environment, the criterion for affective instability, and that she worries about people leaving her despite having had a stable upbringing and reliable home providers. She reports sometimes she “acts up” just because she knows they’ll leave, which is a common manifestation of the fear of abandonment. When screened for impulsive behaviors, her team reports that while she has not had risky sexual behaviors, she has received reprimands at workshop for “making out under the stairs” with two of her last three boyfriends. The team also notes that she will eat anything that is left out, even to the point of making herself sick. The criterion for identity was not able to be elicited as the concept was likely more abstract than could successfully be explained. She did not report dissociative episodes.
Ms. A was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder in accordance with Good Psychiatric Management of Borderline Personality Disorder, by going through each criterion with the team and with Ms. A She and her team were offered psychoeducation about the diagnosis, typical course of the disease including remission in 85% in 10 years, and that the symptoms are significantly heritable . They were relieved and voiced appreciation for the diagnosis.
Treatment: She began individual sessions 2-4 times a month with her mental health counselor. She was started on low dose lamotrigine, which was titrated slowly to an effective dose of 100 mg/day. At 6 months, Ms. A reported a significant decrease in self-injury and was better able to implement the copings skills that she and her therapist had devised together. At 3 year followup, Ms. A reports affective instability, anger dysregulation, and overeating but reports that she feels much better. Her self-injury was reduced to 2-3 times a year and under unusually stressful circumstances.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator of International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, What distinguishes International Journal of Clinical Case Report and Review is not only the scientific rigor of its publications, but the intellectual climate in which research is evaluated. The submission process is refreshingly free of unnecessary formal barriers and bureaucratic rituals that often complicate academic publishing without adding real value. The peer-review system is demanding yet constructive, guided by genuine scientific dialogue rather than hierarchical or authoritarian attitudes. Reviewers act as collaborators in improving the manuscript, not as gatekeepers imposing arbitrary standards. This journal offers a rare balance: high methodological standards combined with a respectful, transparent, and supportive editorial approach. In an era where publishing can feel more burdensome than research itself, this platform restores the original purpose of peer review — to refine ideas, not to obstruct them Prof. Perlat Kapisyzi, FCCP PULMONOLOGIST AND THORACIC IMAGING.
Dear Reader: We have published several articles in the Auctores Publishing, LLC, journal, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports in recent years (CMRR). This is an ‘open access’ journal and the following are our observations. From the initial invitation to submit an article, to the final edits of galley proofs, we have found CMRR personnel to be professional, responsive, rapid and thorough. This entire process begins with Catherine Mitchell, Editorial Coordinator. She is simply outstanding, and, I believe, unparalleled in her capacity. I cannot imagine a more responsive and dedicated Editorial Coordinator. As I read the dates and timing of her correspondence with us, it seems that she never sleeps. I hope Auctores Publishing, LLC, appreciates her efforts as much as these authors do. Thank you to Auctores Publishing, LLC, to the Editorial Staff/Board, and to Catherine Mitchell from a grateful author(s).