UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

2018, VOL. 123, NO. 4, 194–204

https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2018.1526235

REVIEW ARTICLE

Personality disorder: a disease in disguise

Lisa Ekselius
Department of Neuroscience, Psychiatry, Uppsala University, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Personality disorders (PDs) can be described as the manifestation of extreme personality traits that inter- Received 12 August 2018
fere with everyday life and contribute to significant suffering, functional limitations, or both. They are Revised 15 September 2018
common and are frequently encountered in virtually all forms of health care. PDs are associated with an Accepted 17 September 2018
inferior quality of life (QoL), poor health, and premature mortality. The aetiology of PDs is complex and
KEY WORDS
is influenced by genetic and environmental factors. The clinical expression varies between different PD ICD-11; personality
types; the most common and core aspect is related to an inability to build and maintain healthy inter- disorders; personality traits;
personal relationships. This aspect has a negative impact on the interaction between health-care profes- review article
sionals and patients with a PD. From being discrete and categorical disease entities in previous
classification systems, the current concept of PD, reflected in the newly proposed ICD-11, is a dimen-
sional description based on the severity of the disturbed functioning rather than on the type of clinical
presentation. Insight about the characteristics of PDs among medical practitioners is limited, which is
partly because persons do not seek health care for their PD, but instead for other medical issues which
are obscured by their underlying personality problems. What needs to be emphasized is that PDs affect
both the clinical presentation of other medical problems, and the outcome of these, in a negative man-
ner and that the integrated effects of having a PD are a shortened life expectancy. Accordingly, PDs
need to be recognized in clinical practice to a greater extent than previously.

Introduction
In everyday clinical practice persons who think, feel, behave,
or relate to others differently than the average person are
identified. This deviation from the norm is a central feature
in all personality disorders (PDs). Although using slightly dif-
ferent formulations over the years, PDs are roughly character-
ized by ‘a pervasive pattern of thought, feeling and behaviour
that characterize an individual’s unique lifestyle and mode of
adaptation, which deviates markedly from the expectations of
the individual’s culture’ (1). Such characteristics obviously cre-
ate problems for those who bear them. PDs are likely to have
an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, appear to be sta-
ble over time, and lead to impairment or distress (1,2).
This review, which is an overview on PDs and the core
problems these ultimately lead to, is commenced with some
background information about the concept of personality
and on the attempts that have been made to understand
and to describe different characteristics of personality, how
these characteristics can be structured and understood, and
Professor Lisa Ekselius, winner of the Medical Faculty of Uppsala University about the deviations in normal personality that form the
Rudbeck Award 2017 ‘for her extensive and excellent research in basic and basis for the different types of PD. Above all, the paper
clinical psychiatry and for her immense capacity to motivate everyone around
her to flourish’. focuses on problems met in primary and specialist health
care. Such problems are common, and persons with PDs are

CONTACT Lisa Ekselius [email protected] Department of Neuroscience, Psychiatry, Uppsala University, University Hospital, SE-75185
Uppsala, Sweden
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
ß 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 195

known to be under-treated with respect to physical health that time whether psychiatry could explain abnormal behav-
(3) and are over-represented in the group categorized as the iour in persons lacking acute psychiatric symptoms who had
‘difficult patient’ (4,5). committed a violent crime (14).
The present paper argues that all health-care professionals During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century,
need basic knowledge about manifestations of different per- several conceptual systems for normal and abnormal person-
sonality traits, above all in the form of manifest PDs, as we alities emerged as the result of the work of European psy-
know that such pathology has a negative effect on the inter- chologists and psychiatrists (e.g. Ribot, Heymans, Lazursky,
action between the patient and health-care professionals in Schneider, and Sjo €bring).
terms of communication, clinical assessment, treatment, and Th
eodule Ribot (1839–1916), a French psychologist,
outcome (6). The patients’ suffering is considerable, and gen- described normal and abnormal characters. He pointed out
erally they report a low QoL (7,8). Having a PD also infers a that a person’s character is stable from childhood into adult
risk factor for premature mortality (9,10), which affects indi- life. Ribot described three primary personality types: the sen-
viduals and incurs a high cost to society (11). sitive, the active, and the apathetic, all three of which were
divided into subtypes (15).
The Dutch scientist Gerard Heymans (1857–1930) applied
A historic perspective of aberrant personalities empirical methods to the study of personality. He developed
The large variation in the way individuals think, feel, and the Cube of Heymans, a description of a personality typ-
behave has been recognized throughout antiquity. The terms ology. He defined personality types in three dimensions:
for these characteristics have been diverse. For instance, ‘activity level’, ‘emotionality’, and ‘primary versus secondary
Confucius (551–479 BCE) used the combination of ‘blood functioning’, with the last-mentioned dimension comparable
and vital essence’. The Greek philosopher and naturalist to ‘extroversion/introversion’. These three dimensions are
Theophrastus (c. 371 to c. 287 BC) used the term ‘characters’, represented on the x-, y-, and z-axes of the Heymans cube,
and in eighteenth-century France the Galenus–Hippocrates where all combinations of the three dimensions defined
term ‘temperament’ was reinstituted. The term ‘personality’ eight personality types (16).
has been used since the eighteenth century to label distin- The contributions of Aleksandr Lazursky (1874–1917), a
guishing qualities of a person (12). Russian psychologist, were not widespread because most of
Pathological personalities have also generated interest his publications were in Russian and because of the political
over the years. Since the fourth century BC, philosophers climate of the time. His major contribution was the descrip-
have been trying to understand what it is that makes ‘us’ tion of the ‘endopsychic’ and ‘exopsychic’ aspects of person-
what we are. Theophrastus, a scholar of Plato and Aristotle, ality. The endopsychic components represent the
was the first to publish a systematic description of the multi- psychological functions (e.g. perception, memory, attention,
faceted nature of personality types (12). A few hundred years thinking) that are mainly inborn; the exopsychic components
later, Aelius Galenus (130–200 AD) linked Hippocrates’ four are the consequence of the interaction with the outside
humours to personality characteristics in his description of world. The interplay between these two aspects of personal-
sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, and melancholic tempera- ity determines how a person functions in an integrated social
ments. He proposed that each of these four body fluids held context (17).
a combination of two properties split along two axes: tem- The German psychiatrist Kurt Schneider (1887–1967)
perature (hot/cold) and humidity (wet/dry). The humoral focused on diagnostic issues that included concepts of
pathology system influenced the view among European doc- ‘psychopathy’, which he had broadly equated to PDs. Based
tors until the breakthrough of medical science in the nine- on his clinical views (18), he vaguely defined abnormal per-
teenth century. sonality as a statistical deviation from the norm. He proposed
In the early nineteenth century, Franz Joseph Gall 10 psychopathic personalities, all of which are very similar to
(1758–1828), a German neuroanatomist, thought that some those in the current classifications of PDs in the DSM-5 and
brain areas were associated with specific functions. He also ICD-10 (19).
thought that measurements of the skull represented differen- Henrik Sjo€bring (1879–1956), a Swedish psychiatrist, sug-
ces in the individual’s personality (13). gested four constitution factors of the personality: capacity
Philippe Pinel (1745–1826), a French physician, was the (intelligence), validity (psychic energy), stability (balance in
first to include an aberrant personality in the nosology of keynote), and solidity (firmness, tardiness, tenacity). By these
psychiatry (14). Pinel introduced the term ‘manie sans d
elire’ variables, all persons can be categorized as either normal,
(mania without delusion). During that time, the term ‘mania’ super-, or sub-: e.g. subcapable (unintelligent), subvalid (lack
was employed to refer to states of agitation. Pinel described of psychic energy), normosolid, superstable, and so on (20).
a few of his male patients who were disposed to bursts of The first modern attempt to determine the structure of
irrational anger and impulsive violence in response to minor human personality was credited to the English scientist Sir
irritation. In the same intellectual environment Jean-
Etienne Francis Galton (1882–1911). He used a lexical approach to
Dominique Esquirol (1772–1840) introduced the concept the dimensions of personality based on the assumption that
monomanie raisonnante and the Englishman James Cowles those personality characteristics important to a group of peo-
Prichard (1786–1848) used the term moral insanity. These ple will eventually be represented in their language (21). This
three physicians were obsessed by the practical question at work was continued by several others (22), and the lexical
196 L. EKSELIUS

hypothesis constitutes the basis for how current approaches the specific type of PD. Even if the results of such studies con-
describe personality dimensions. It is also important to men- tribute to an understanding of underlying physiological proc-
tion the work of the psychologists Raymond Bernard Cattell esses, they are not yet ready to be used in clinical practice.
(1905–1998) (23) and Gordon Willard Allport (1897–1967) Several studies have examined the effects of being
(24) who independently used advanced statistics (e.g. factor exposed to childhood adversities and the risk to develop PD.
analysis) to discern dimensions of personality. Just to mention one such study, we recently showed that
exposure to cumulative childhood adversity was incremen-
tally associated with a diagnosis of PD in young adulthood
Modern concepts of personality disorder and (31). Furthermore, childhood or adolescent psychiatric disor-
personality ders have been suggested to trigger a chain of behaviours
Before discussing this issue, it needs to be re-emphasized and responses that foster the more persistent psychopath-
that the description of personalities is based purely on obser- ology of a PD (32,33).
vations, or rather expressions, of the individual’s way to To determine the importance of genetic and environmen-
think, feel, behave, or relate. As a corollary, it follows that tal factors in early childhood in personality pathology the
PDs are diagnoses based on symptoms described by the per- relationship between vulnerability to child abuse and anti-
sons themselves, by persons in their surroundings, or are social personality patterns in adulthood was investigated
objectively observed in study situations. This circumstance (34). It was shown that individuals with a gene polymorph-
accounts for why the validity and reliability of the current ism that resulted in a low activity in monoamine oxidase A
diagnostic instruments lack optimality (25). (MAOA) were more vulnerable to developing an antisocial
Current knowledge on pathological personalities is primar- personality pattern than those who had high activity in the
ily based on studies from four perspectives, all of which are MAOA gene, given that they had been exposed to child
necessary to create an in-depth template of what character- abuse. This gene–environment interaction has subsequently
izes personality pathology. been confirmed (35). Moreover, a similar interaction for the
The first perspective is the clinical picture, i.e. the inte- effects of child maltreatment on antisocial behaviour has
grated presentation of the clinical symptoms that are either also been shown for other genes (36,37).
expressed or witnessed. This perspective is what constitutes There is thus reason to consider genetic and environmental
the basis for the clinical structured diagnosis according to factors as interacting systems of crucial importance in the
classification systems. The second perspective entails a deter- development of functional and dysfunctional personality traits.
mination of underlying dysfunctional personality traits as
well as dysfunctional limitations on capacity and functionality
Classification of personality disorders
in the brain’s cognitive, emotional, and impulse control sys-
tems. The third perspective relates to the brain’s biological The differences in the types of aberration in thought, feeling,
systems and their functions; this third perspective has highly and behaviour have been the basis for the classification of
benefited from the rapid development of brain imaging different PDs. The characteristics described by Galenus, and
techniques (26). The fourth perspective denotes the underly- later by e.g. Pinel and Schneider, are very similar to contem-
ing genetic contribution to the above-mentioned phenom- porary classification systems. What today are referred to as
ena (27), which is currently approached in whole-genome PDs were earlier called ‘pathological personalities’ or ‘persona
association studies (28). pathologica’ and were found under that heading in earlier
Not unexpectedly, studies have shown that the aetiology of versions of the ICD (up to ICD-8). These diagnoses were used
personality pathology is complex. Overwhelming evidence sup- rarely, in part because of their stigmatizing connotations.
ports the idea that an interaction between genetic and environ- Up to now, classification of PDs has been based on fulfilling
mental factors is necessary for the development of human a specified number of defined and ‘specific’ criteria for each PD,
personality. The relation between the dimensions of normal resulting in a categorical description; if a defined number of
personality and PD is not clear, however. Even if a PD has been these criteria were met, a disorder was acknowledged, else not.
viewed as an overexpression of personality traits to the extent Over time, there has been an intraprofessional dispute on
that they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment, it whether the classification of PDs should be based on the
has recently been demonstrated that a moderate-to-sizable pro- defined and specific characteristics or on the severity of the
portion of the genetic influence underlying PD is not shared functional aberration. Historically, and currently, in the ICD-
with the domain constructs of normative personality (29). 10 (which is from 1992) and in the current American DSM-5
Based on the hypothesis that the domains of dysfunction in (38) (from 2013) classification is based on types of symptom,
PDs are linked to specific neural circuits, neuroimaging techni- i.e. characteristics of the clinical presentation, represented by
ques have been used over the past decade to examine the the abovementioned ‘specific’ criteria for each PD. ICD-10
neural integrity of these circuits in personality-disordered individ- describes nine discrete and specific (as well as one unspeci-
uals. Currently, the literature is flooded with information fied) types of PD (Table 1). The DSM-5 (38) identifies 10 PDs
acquired through this approach. Most studies are done to of similar structure. The DSM system has gone one step fur-
explore borderline PD (30). In general, the studies have thus far ther in classification by grouping the different disorders in
demonstrated deviations in neuronal circuitry in areas previously three clusters based on some overall common features. To
found to be active in the symptomatology that characterizes illustrate, cluster A contains odd and eccentric personalities,
 UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 197

Table 1. Personality disorders in the ICD-10 (2).

Code Disorder Characteristics in brief
F60.0 Paranoid Excessive sensitivity to setbacks, unforgiveness of insults, recurrent suspicions without justifica-
tion regarding the sexual fidelity of the spouse or sexual partner, and a combative and ten-
acious sense of personal rights.
F60.1 Schizoid Withdrawal from affectional, social, and other contacts, preference for fantasy, solitary activities,
and introspection. Limited capacity to express feelings and to experience pleasure.
F60.2 Dissocial Disregard for social obligations, callous unconcern for the feelings of others. Gross disparity
between behaviour and prevailing social norms. Behaviour not readily modifiable by adverse
experience, including punishment. Low tolerance to frustration; low threshold for discharge of
aggression, including violence; tendency to blame others, all leading to conflict with society.
F60.3 Emotionally unstable A tendency to act impulsively and without consideration of the consequences; unpredictable
and capricious mood. Liability to outbursts of emotion and incapacity to control the behav-
ioural explosions. Tendency to quarrelsome behaviour and to conflicts with others. Two types
are distinguished: the impulsive type with emotional instability and lack of impulse control;
and the borderline type, with added disturbances in self-image, aims, and internal preferen-
ces, chronic feelings of emptiness, intense and unstable interpersonal relationships, and a ten-
dency to self-destructive behaviour, including suicide gestures and attempts.
F60.4 Histrionic Shallow and labile affectivity, self-dramatization, theatricality, exaggerated expression of emo-
tions, suggestibility, egocentricity, self-indulgence, lack of consideration for others, easily hurt
feelings, and continuous seeking for appreciation, excitement, and attention.
F60.5 Anankastic Feelings of doubt, perfectionism, excessive conscientiousness, checking and preoccupation with
details, stubbornness, caution, and rigidity. There may be insistent and unwelcome thoughts
or impulses that do not attain the severity of an obsessive-compulsive disorder.
F60.6 Anxious [avoidant] Feelings of tension and apprehension, insecurity and inferiority. A continuous yearning to be
liked and accepted, hypersensitivity to rejection and criticism with restricted personal attach-
ments, and a tendency to avoid certain activities by habitual exaggeration of the potential
dangers or risks in everyday situations.
F60.7 Dependent Pervasive passive reliance on other people to make one’s major and minor life decisions, great
fear of abandonment, feelings of helplessness and incompetence, passive compliance with
the wishes of elders and others, and a weak response to the demands of daily life. Lack of
vigour may show itself in the intellectual or emotional spheres; often a tendency to transfer
responsibility to others.
F60.8 Other specific Eccentric, ‘haltlose’ type, immature, narcissistic, passive-aggressive, psychoneurotic.
F60.9 Unspecified Diffuse symptoms, not fully qualifying for specific PD, but with the general criterion fulfilled.

cluster B includes dramatic, impulsive, emotional personal- as influence the way PDs are seen (43). After 1–2 years of adap-
ities, and cluster C fearful and anxious personalities. tive work, ICD-11 is expected to be operative internationally in
A basic feature common for the different classification sys- 2020–2021. In ICD-11 PDs have been classified based on the
tems is that the aberration must be severe enough to cause perspectives mentioned above, i.e. according to the severity of
a functional impairment in everyday life. This is the ‘general suffering, and are divided into three severity groups: mild, mod-
criterion’ for all PDs and overrides other perspectives. In erate, or severe. The degree of severity is determined by the
other words, even the observance of very odd behaviour or extent of problems in interpersonal relationships or the ability
feelings is not enough for a clinical diagnosis of a PD unless and willingness to perform expected social and occupational
it can be ascertained that they lead to impairment or distress roles, or both (see Table 2 for a full description).
in everyday life. A new feature in ICD-11 is the introduction of the term
Currently, there is somewhat of a paradigm shift in that ‘Personality Difficulty’, which refers to pronounced personality
more and more arguments speak for the relevance of a characteristics that may affect treatment or health services but
dimensional classification of PD based on the severity of do not rise to the level of severity to merit a diagnosis of PD.
symptoms rather than on the specific characteristics (19).
Studies have, thus, shown that the conceptualization of PDs
into discrete categories results in an insufficient description Dimensions of personality disorders in ICD-11
of the problem. Rather, it seems that within each discrete PD ICD-11 has, thus, wiped out all type-specific categories of PD
category the level of dysfunction is dimensional and depend- apart from the main one, the presence of PD itself. Instead,
ent on the number of criteria fulfilled (39). Furthermore, only the type of clinical manifestation is added as a specific ‘post-
about half of all individuals with diagnosable PD fulfil criteria coordination’ code describing the clinical characteristics in
for a specific PD and are thus given a diagnosis of unspeci- the form of six different personality domains. Factor analytic
fied PD (40). In addition, the expression of different symp- strategies have supported five domains, although clinical rea-
toms evolves continuously across the lifespan (41). soning has suggested six domains (44–46). These six clinically
derived personality domains do not fully correspond with
the different specific PD types in the earlier ICD-10 (Table 2).
General description of personality disorders in
The domain traits are not inherently pathological, but
ICD-11
rather represent a profile of underlying personality structure
The new ICD-11 classification system, which was released by (19). They apply equally to individuals without any PD and to
WHO in June 2018 (42), means a radical change in the classifi- those with severe disorder, but in PD they show where the
cation of PDs and will impact all aspects of health care, as well focus of the disorder is apparent. In severe disorder, several
198 L. EKSELIUS

Table 2. Personality disorders in the forthcoming ICD-11.

6D10 Personality disorder
Description Personality disorder is characterized by problems in functioning of aspects of the self (e.g. identity, self-worth,
accuracy of self-view, self-direction), and/or interpersonal dysfunction (e.g. ability to develop and maintain
close and mutually satisfying relationships, ability to understand others’ perspectives and to manage conflict in
relationships) that have persisted over an extended period of time (e.g. 2 years or more). The disturbance is
manifested in patterns of cognition, emotional experience, emotional expression, and behaviour that are mal-
adaptive (e.g. inflexible or poorly regulated) and is manifested across a range of personal and social situations
(i.e. is not limited to specific relationships or social roles). The patterns of behaviour characterizing the disturb-
ance are not developmentally appropriate and cannot be explained primarily by social or cultural factors,
including socio-political conflict. The disturbance is associated with substantial distress or significant impair-
ment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
6D10.0 6D10.1 6D10.2
Mild Moderate Severe
Description All general diagnostic requirements All general diagnostic requirements All general diagnostic requirements
for Personality Disorder are met. for Personality Disorder are met. for Personality Disorder are met.
Disturbances affect some areas of Disturbances affect multiple areas There are severe disturbances in
personality functioning but not of personality functioning (e.g. functioning of the self (e.g. sense
others (e.g. problems with self-dir- identity or sense of self, ability to of self may be so unstable that
ection in the absence of problems form intimate relationships, ability individuals report not having a
with stability and coherence of to control impulses and modulate sense of who they are or so rigid
identity or self-worth) and may behaviour). However, some areas that they refuse to participate in
not be apparent in some contexts. of personality functioning may be any but an extremely narrow
There are problems in many inter- relatively less affected. There are range of situations; self-view may
personal relationships and/or in marked problems in most inter- be characterized by self-contempt
performance of expected occupa- personal relationships and the or be grandiose or highly eccen-
tional and social roles, but some performance of most expected tric). Problems in interpersonal
relationships are maintained, and/ social and occupational roles are functioning seriously affect virtu-
or some roles carried out. Specific compromised to some degree. ally all relationships, and the abil-
manifestations of personality dis- Relationships are likely to be char- ity and willingness to perform
turbances are generally of mild acterized by conflict, avoidance, expected social and occupational
severity. Mild Personality Disorder withdrawal, or extreme depend- roles is absent or severely com-
is typically not associated with ency (e.g. few friendships main- promised. Specific manifestations
substantial harm to self or others tained, persistent conflict in work of personality disturbance are
but may be associated with sub- relationships and consequent severe and affect most, if not all,
stantial distress or with impair- occupational problems, romantic areas of personality functioning.
ment in personal, family, social, relationships characterized by ser- Severe Personality Disorder is
educational, occupational, or other ious disruption or inappropriate often associated with harm to self
important areas of functioning submissiveness). Specific manifes- or others and is associated with
that is either limited to circum- tations of personality disturbance severe impairment in all or nearly
scribed areas (e.g. romantic rela- are generally of moderate severity. all areas of life, including personal,
tionships, employment) or present Moderate Personality Disorder is family, social, educational, occupa-
in more areas but milder. sometimes associated with harm tional, and other important areas
to self or others, and is associated of functioning.
with marked impairment in per-
sonal, family, social, educational,
occupational, or other important
areas of functioning, although
functioning in circumscribed areas
may be maintained.
6D11 Prominent personality traits or patterns
Description Trait domain qualifiers may be applied to Personality Disorders or Personality Difficulty to describe the characteristics
of the individual’s personality that are most prominent and that contribute to personality disturbance. Trait domains
are continuous with normal personality characteristics in individuals who do not have Personality Disorder or
Personality Difficulty. Trait domains are not diagnostic categories, but rather represent a set of dimensions that
correspond to the underlying structure of personality. As many trait domain qualifiers may be applied as necessary to
describe personality functioning. Individuals with more severe personality disturbance tend to have a greater number
of prominent trait domains.
6D11.0 Negative affectivity in personality disorder or personality difficulty
6D11.1 Detachment in personality disorder or personality difficulty
6D11.2 Dissociality in personality disorder or personality difficulty
6D11.3 Disinhibition in personality disorder or personality difficulty
6D11.4 Anankastia in personality disorder or personality difficulty
6D11.5 Borderline pattern
Excerpt from reference (41) with permission from WHO.

domain traits are likely to be associated with the disorder Negative affectivity in personality disorder
(47). To describe personality functioning, as many domains
The core aspect of negative affectivity is the tendency to
as necessary can be applied.
experience a broad range of negative emotions. Common
The descriptions of the six different domain traits below
manifestations, not all of which may be present in everyone
are slightly and only linguistically modified from those in the
at a given time, include experiencing a variety of negative
original ICD-11. emotions with a frequency and intensity out of proportion
 UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 199

to the situation: emotional lability and poor emotion regula- one’s own behaviour and the behaviour of others, as well as
tion, negativistic attitudes, low self-esteem, low self-confi- the need to control one’s environment to ensure conformity
dence, and mistrustfulness. to these standards. Common manifestations, not all of which
Patients fulfilling criteria for this disorder were classified may be present in a given individual at a given time, can
as anxious/avoidant in previous classifications. include conscientiousness (e.g. concern with social rules, obli-
gations, and norms of right and wrong, scrupulous attention
Detachment in personality disorder to detail, rigid, systematic, day-to-day routines, obsessiveness
about hyper-scheduling, emphasis on organization, orderli-
The core aspect of the detachment domain is the tendency
ness, and neatness) and emotional and behavioural con-
to maintain interpersonal (social detachment) and emotional
straint (e.g. rigid control over emotional expression,
distance (emotional detachment). Common manifestations,
stubbornness and inflexibility, risk-avoidance, perseveration,
not all of which may be present in everyone at a given time,
and deliberativeness).
include social detachment (avoidance of social interactions,
lack of friendships, and avoidance of intimacy) and emotional
detachment (reserve, aloofness, and limited emotional Borderline personality disorder
expression and experience).
This disorder type is like the schizoid type of PD described The criteria for this disorder are very similar to those for dis-
in ICD-10. inhibition. It was included in the new ICD-11 at a very late
stage of the process (45). The classification may be applied
to individuals whose pattern of personality disturbance is
Dissocial or antisocial personality disorder
characterized by a pervasive pattern of instability of interper-
Dissocial or antisocial PD is characterized by a gross disparity sonal relationships, self-image, and affects, as well as marked
between behaviour and the prevailing social norms as well impulsivity, as indicated by many of the following behav-
as by a callous unconcern for the feelings of others. ioural patterns: frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined aban-
Moreover, this type of PD can be described by a number of donment; a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal
other attributes, including a gross and persistent attitude of relationships; identity disturbance, manifested in markedly
irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obli- and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self; a ten-
gations; an incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, dency to act rashly in states of high negative affect, leading
although having no difficulty in establishing them; very low to potentially self-damaging behaviours; recurrent episodes
tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of of self-harm; emotional instability due to marked reactivity of
aggression, including violence; an incapacity to experience mood; chronic feelings of emptiness; inappropriate intense
guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment; anger or difficulty controlling anger; and transient dissocia-
and finally, a marked proneness to blame others or to offer tive symptoms or psychotic-like features in situations of high
plausible rationalizations for the behaviour that has brought affective arousal. The condition involves anxiety without an
the person into conflict with society. identifiable connection to concrete stimuli and, among other
Persons with a dissocial PD often have an early criminal things, has been called ‘annihilation anxiety’, ‘pan-anxiety’, or
record and exhibit conduct problems in childhood or adoles- ‘global anxiety’. The term ‘emptiness depression’ describes
cence. The construct of a dissocial PD largely overlaps char- general feelings of despair and hopelessness with dominance
acteristics of the concept of psychopathy, which is not a of depressive thoughts.
term used to define a psychiatric disorder (48). Borderline PD (in ICD-10 ‘emotionally unstable PD’) is a
dominating diagnosis in out- and inpatient psychiatric care
(9,10). Clinical expressions are more evident in younger ages
Disinhibition in personality disorder
and tend to decrease with advancing age.
The core aspect of disinhibition traits is the tendency to act Borderline PD is associated with high mortality by suicide
rashly based on immediate external or internal stimuli (i.e. (9,10,49). There is also a high risk to die prematurely because
sensations, emotions, thoughts) without consideration of the of impulsive risk-taking, as well as succumbing to violence
consequences. Common manifestations—not all of which from others (9,10). Recurrent suicidal threats or attempts,
may be present in everyone at a given time—include impul- when combined with fears of abandonment, are strongly
sivity, distractibility, irresponsibility, recklessness, and lack indicative of the diagnosis (50). Even if these characteristics
of planning. make borderline pattern PD easy to identify, the diagnosis is
Patients fulfilling the criteria for this disorder in previous often overlooked. A key reason for this neglect is the percep-
classifications were classified as histrionic, narcissistic, tion that the overemotional, sometimes theatrical, and self-
or borderline. injurious behaviours are signs of wilfulness and manipula-
tions rather than signs of an illness (51).
Borderline PD occasionally includes depressive and anx-
Anankastia in personality disorder
iety symptoms and mild irritability. In general, many persons
Anankastic PD (or obsessive-compulsive PD) is characterized with borderline PD describe recurrent occasions with panic
by a narrow focus on orderliness and perfectionism and on anxiety, which may lead to suspicion of a primary panic dis-
right and wrong, although it also implies a need to control order or generalized anxiety disorder. Likewise, experienced
200 L. EKSELIUS

social discomfort and fears can arouse suspicion of primary by-step deepening of the formal diagnostic work while ini-
social anxiety disorder. Finally, recent studies have suggested tiating treatment efforts. Enhanced personal knowledge will
that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar also provide a more nuanced image of the patient’s prob-
disorder, and borderline PD have similar origins or share lems as well as adaptive resources.
common pathological mechanisms (52,53). Accounts of the current problem and the patient’s current
life situation are a natural starting point when collecting
data on the clinical history of the patient. Special attention
Prevalence and longitudinal perspective must be given to the risks of suicide and violence. The clin-
PDs are common in the general population. A recent over- ical history should be expanded in a piecemeal manner on
view (54), based on 13 studies conducted in the USA and appropriate occasions.
Europe, reported prevalence figures varying from 3.9% to 15.5%. During the diagnostic process, it often becomes clear that
In the WHO World Mental Health Survey, carried out in 13 coun- the patient presents with criteria for several disorders, both
tries, the prevalence rate was 6.1% (55). The large variation in within and outside the PD spectrum. Such comorbidity is
prevalence may be due to differences in sampling, diagnostic common (64,65); it is seen across the whole spectrum of PDs
methods, and study settings. Furthermore, there may be differen- and other mental disorders and in general represents a
ces in culture regarding significant personality pathology. broader pattern of symptoms as well as a more severe condi-
Persons in contact with the health-care system exhibit tion. This is reflected in the observation that the total num-
higher prevalence of PDs as compared with those not in ber of fulfilled criteria for any PD is related to the observed
contact. In fact, one-fourth of patients in primary care (56) dysfunction and to the reported QoL (54). Comorbidity
and about half of those in psychiatric outpatient facilities ful- between PDs and other mental disorders contributes signifi-
fil the criteria for a PD (57). cantly to functional impairment (64) while also increasing the
PDs are equally common or more common in men (54) in risk of early mortality (9,10).
the general population. In clinical settings, however, PDs are Because of this characteristic, it is not uncommon that the
more often recognized in women, probably due to the person who fulfils criteria for a diagnosis of PD will seek
higher rates of help-seeking behaviour in women (9,10). health care for another mental disorder, a fact that might be
Stability over time has long been a basic concept both in misleading during the diagnostic process. Not too infre-
the description of personality and of PDs. Supporting this quently, there are rapid onset depressive or anxiety states
concept is the observation that there is rank-order stability that motivate the care episode during which the coexisting
over time in the expression of personality symptoms (58). On problems related to a comorbid PD are apparent. A more
the other hand, an exaggeration in some personality traits pressing issue is comorbidity of a more enduring character.
over the life course and a decline in others have been For example, a coexisting ADHD can obscure the clinical
observed (41,59). Furthermore, it has recently been shown symptoms of borderline PD. Conversely, a severe and pro-
that drugs affecting serotonin uptake can modulate personal- longed eating disorder may dominate over an underlying
ity traits (60,61). There is less support for the idea that a PD personality pathology.
should be regarded as stable over time. Actually, modern When the symptomatic picture of PD is complex and par-
research has shown that, although a maladaptive personality tially overlapping between different diagnoses, it is seldom
can be recognized early in life, it evolves continuously across possible to distinguish between different underlying patholo-
the lifespan and is more plastic than previously believed gies. The differential diagnostic procedure will therefore be
(41). In addition, in the case of coexisting mental disorders, more about evaluating the relative influence of the various
their contribution to the clinical picture will vary over time demonstrable expressed symptoms on the severity of
with the state of these disorders. In other words, even if per- functioning.
sonality traits are largely constant across time, there is a ten- To optimize diagnostic accuracy self-assessment tools,
dency that symptoms in persons with a PD change more semi-structured interviews and personality inventories can be
over time than those without a PD. This change is often in used. The SCID-II is such an interview support for personality
the direction of improvement (62,63). diagnosis according to the DSM-IV and DSM-5 (66).

Diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and psychiatric Personality disorders and health

comorbidity
The long-term negative effects of having a PD are significant
Establishing a formal diagnosis of a PD is an issue for specialist (9,10,41,54). Furthermore, because a PD is often overlooked
psychiatry, where it must be regarded as a time-process func- diagnostically, the potential risks for the bearer may go
tion. The patient history must cover the life perspective to undetected. A certain proportion of those who fulfil the crite-
understand the current clinical landscape in context and against ria for a diagnosis of PD will ultimately have psychiatric care,
a background of the individual’s unique developmental history. while almost everyone eventually comes in contact with pri-
General and permanent problems in work, studies, and mary care or specialized somatic care. Given that personality-
relationships are often primary and obvious observations. related problems lead to varying degrees of lack of adaptiv-
Difficulties in interpersonal relations are often visible already ity in interaction with other people, there are often complica-
at the first patient encounter. Those difficulties justify a step- tions in the contacts with health care and social services.
 UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 201

Personality traits are well known to impact health-related specialist psychiatry, however. A well-developed liaison
QoL (8) and outcome in health care. The negative consequence psychiatry, a subspecialty of psychiatry, is particu-
of having a high degree of neuroticism has been extensively larly suitable.
studied (67). The consequence of having a PD is, however, only Even if treatment modalities are not the topic of this sur-
well studied in psychiatric care, where a multitude of studies vey, some basic principles must be addressed. Because PDs
have shown that having a comorbid PD represents a more are deeply ingrained ways of thinking and behaving that
severe condition with a worse prognosis as stated above. evolved as the personality developed, they are considered
There has been less focus on somatic care. Still, it has difficult to treat. In recent years several studies have
been shown that having a PD is related to higher rates of emerged that have, to some extent, changed this concept
pain, greater use of analgesics, and more primary care, taken (85–88). In general, there are many challenges and no simple
together suggesting an increase in somatic morbidity (68). It solution in the treatment of PDs. At the same time, because
has also been shown that the outcome of treatment for som- fundamental problems of PDs are related to interpersonal
atic ill health is usually worse in the presence of a PD (68). relations, a structured and stable relationship between the
For instance, having a PD was found to increase the risk of patient and the clinician is the basis for any successful
stroke (69) and coronary artery disease (70,71). Furthermore, approach. This ‘therapeutic alliance’ looms as the strongest
having any PD is strongly associated with severe occupa- predictor of successful outcome of any treatment attempt.
tional outcomes, including disability benefits, regardless of The most difficult challenge for the clinician is to achieve
disability diagnosis (72–74). this goal. In fact, the pre-existing quality of the patient’s rela-
The most studied PD in this respect is borderline PD. tionships, rather than the type of PD, is the single factor that
Persons with this PD tend to be impulsive, and where self- most affects the quality of this alliance (89). The strength of
harm is common they have an increased tendency to seek this alliance is crucial not only to obtain anamnestic informa-
health care (75). Borderline PD, however, is related to an tion about the true history of the problems encountered but
increased risk for several health problems, and consequently also to motivate and maintain adherence to treatment.
for a greater consumption of health care (76–79). Although there is only a paucity of randomized controlled
Based on previous knowledge that individuals with a PD studies on the effect of psychotherapy in PD (90), the few
have a higher mortality rate and a shorter life expectancy studies published suggest that it should be the core treat-
compared with the general population (69,80–83), we ment (91), leading to individual benefit and a reduction in
recently assessed to what extent this was related to type of care costs (92).
PD or cause of death (9,10). Data from nationwide Swedish Currently, no pharmaceuticals are registered for use in
hospital registers with a follow-up of 25 years were used. PDs. Any attempt to apply a pharmacological approach is
Overall, all-cause standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were therefore an issue for the psychiatric specialist. Such an
found to increase in all clusters of PDs for natural and unnat- approach should aim to reduce or eliminate specific symp-
ural causes of death. The overall SMR was 6.1 in women and toms seen in other psychiatric disorders, where there is evi-
5.0 in men, figures in line with those previously reported for dence that the drug in question is efficient. Irrespective of
anorexia nervosa, with higher rates in cluster B and unspeci- which drug is used, the clinical effect should be
fied/other PDs. The increased mortality ratio was seen for all closely monitored.
somatic causes of death, reflecting the impact of having a PD The underlying hypothesis when attempting psychotropic
on somatic health and wellbeing. The SMR for suicide was as pharmaceuticals in the treatment of PDs is the assumption
high as 34.5 in women and 16.0 in men for cluster B disor- that the features and attributes associated with the clinical
ders. Somatic and psychiatric comorbidity increased SMRs fur- expression are linked to biochemical abnormalities and thus
ther. This excess mortality was also observed for most patients can be regulated by psychotropic drugs. For most specific
diagnosed with PDs not severe enough to lead to hospitaliza- PDs, studies on the putative benefit of pharmaceuticals are
tion (9). This observation contradicts the idea that only those lacking, and where studies have been done the results are at
persons with a PD severe enough to motivate inpatient treat- best modest (93). Despite this limitation, most psychiatrists
ment are burdened by an increased risk in mortality. This has can testify about patients with PDs who are prescribed many
important practical implications in that most patients with drugs, often over a long time, and without information about
clinical problems linked to a PD are only treated as outpa- the expected or obtained benefit, or how the treatment was
tients. On the other hand, the risk of death in those only followed up. Such polypharmacy, particularly in combination
treated as outpatients was clearly less than in those who with poor documentation, can put patients at risk of adverse
received inpatient care, supporting the view of a difference in drug events (side effects) and interactions. In other words,
clinical severity between these groups (47). drugs should never be the first-line treatment but may be
justified as a supplement to other treatment forms in spe-
cific situations.
Aspects on handling and treatment
Given the impact of PDs on treatment outcomes in somatic
Conclusion
and mental health care, a clinical pattern suggesting the
existence of such a disorder should be identified in primary PD frequently goes undetected, in the shade of other health
or somatic specialist care (84). Treatment is a concern for problems or diseases. PD is a predictor of worse health,
202 L. EKSELIUS

premature death, and more serious life issues. It constitutes 10. Bjorkenstam E, Bjorkenstam C, Holm H, Gerdin B, Ekselius L.
a challenge to health-care professionals and, above all, a bur- Excess cause-specific mortality in in-patient-treated individuals
with personality disorder: 25-year nationwide population-based
den for the patient, the family, and society. PD involves devi-
study. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;207:339–45.
ations in cognition, affectivity, interpersonal functioning, 11. Soeteman DI, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Verheul R, Busschbach JJ. The
and/or impulse control. Deepened knowledge requires intel- economic burden of personality disorders in mental health care.
lectual approaches based on sociodemographic, as well as J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69:259–65.
epidemiological and advanced genetic and imag- 12. Crocq MA. Milestones in the history of personality disorders.
ing techniques. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2013;15:147–53.
13. Gall FJ. On the functions of the brain and of each of its parts.
There is a clinical shift from an earlier focus on the char- Boston, MA: Marsh, Capen & Lyon; 1835 (republished in 2016 by
acteristics of discrete PD entities to an awareness of the Forgotten Books FB &c Ltd, London).
common features of different PDs, the suffering of patients, 14. Pinel P. Trait

e m
edico-philosophique sur l’ali

enation mentale ou la
and the many problems they face in interpersonal relation- manie. Paris, France: Richard, Caille & Ravier; 1801.
ships and daily life. The new ICD-11 classification aims to 15. Ribot T. La psychologie des sentiments [Psychology of emotions].
Paris: Fe
lix Alcan 1896 (republished in English in 2016 by
improve the description of the severity of problems encoun-
Forgotten Books FB &c Ltd, London).
tered by patients. 16. Gauchet F, Lambert R. La caract
erologie d’Heymans et Wiersma.
Knowledge of the clinical aspects of PDs in general health Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 1959 (French).
care, vigilance to symptoms of PD, and appropriate diagnosis 17. Leontyev DA. [The theory of personality of A. F. Lazursky: from
are all essential for optimal support to affected patients. predisposition to relationships]. (Russian). Metodologia i istoria psi-
khologii. 2008;3:7–20.
18. Schneider K. Die psychopathischen Perso €nlichkeiten. Berlin:
Disclosure statement Springer; 1923.
19. Tyrer P, Reed GM, Crawford MJ. Classification, assessment, preva-
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. lence, and effect of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015;385:717–26.
20. Oreland L. Henrik Sjobring and the concept of individual psych-
ology in psychiatry. Ups J Med Sci. 2015;120:95–103.
Note on the contributor 21. Galton F. Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review. 1884;36:
179–85.
Lisa Ekselius, MD, PhD, is a Full Professor of Psychiatry at 22. Ashton MC, Lee K. The lexical approach to the study of personality
Uppsala University and a Senior Consultant in Psychiatry at structure: toward the identification of cross-culturally replicable
dimensions of personality variation. J Pers Disord. 2005;19:303–8.
the Uppsala University Hospital. Her research is focused on
23. Cattell RB. A systematic theoretical and factual study. New York:
issues related to personality and personality disorders. These McGraw-Hill; 1950.
include the epidemiology of personality disorders, but also 24. Allport GW, Odbert HS. Traits names: a psycholexical study.
the contribution of personality traits to the expression of Psychological Monographs. 1936;47:1–171.
somatic as well as psychiatric disorders, and to the vulner- 25. Zimmerman M. Diagnosing personality disorders. A review of
issues and research methods. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51:
ability to recover from major body trauma.
225–45.
26. McCloskey MS, Phan KL, Coccaro EF. Neuroimaging and personal-
ity disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2005;7:65–72.
References 27. Balestri M, Calati R, Serretti A, De Ronchi D. Genetic modulation of
1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual personality traits: a systematic review of the literature. Int Clin
of mental disorders. 4th ed., text revision. Washington, DC: Psychopharmacol. 2014;29:1–15.
American Psychiatric Association; 2000. 28. Lo MT, Hinds DA, Tung JY, Franz C, Fan CC, Wang Y, et al.
2. WHO. International statistical classification of diseases and related Genome-wide analyses for personality traits identify six genomic
health problems 10th revision 2016 [July 9, 2018]. Available from: loci and show correlations with psychiatric disorders. Nat Genet.
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en. 2017;49:152–6.
3. Sanatinia R, Middleton SM, Lin T, Dale O, Crawford MJ. Quality of 29. Czajkowski N, Aggen SH, Krueger RF, Kendler KS, Neale MC,
physical health care among patients with personality disorder. Knudsen GP, et al. A twin study of normative personality and
Personal Ment Health. 2015;9:319–29. DSM-IV personality disorder criterion counts: evidence for separate
4. Lewis G, Appleby L. Personality disorder: the patients psychiatrists genetic influences. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175:649–56.
dislike. Br J Psychiatry. 1988;153:44–9. 30. Krause-Utz A, Winter D, Niedtfeld I, Schmahl C. The latest neuroi-
5. Sulzer SH. Does “difficult patient” status contribute to de facto maging findings in borderline personality disorder. Curr Psychiatry
demedicalization? The case of borderline personality disorder. Soc Rep. 2014;16:438.
Sci Med. 2015;142:82–9. 31. Bjorkenstam E, Ekselius L, Burstrom B, Kosidou K, Bjorkenstam C.
6. Huprich SK. Personality pathology in primary care: ongoing needs Association between childhood adversity and a diagnosis of per-
for detection and intervention. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2018; sonality disorder in young adulthood: a cohort study of 107,287
25:43–54. individuals in Stockholm County. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32:721–31.
7. Narud K, Mykletun A, Dahl AA. Quality of life in patients with per- 32. Kasen S, Cohen P, Skodol AE, Johnson JG, Brook JS. Influence of
sonality disorders seen at an ordinary psychiatric outpatient clinic. child and adolescent psychiatric disorders on young adult person-
BMC Psychiatry. 2005;5:10. ality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:1529–35.
8. Huang IC, Lee JL, Ketheeswaran P, Jones CM, Revicki DA, Wu AW. 33. Ramklint M, von Knorring AL, von Knorring L, Ekselius L. Child and
Does personality affect health-related quality of life? A systematic adolescent psychiatric disorders predicting adult personality dis-
review. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0173806. order: a follow-up study. Nord J Psychiatry. 2003;57:23–8.
9. Bjorkenstam C, Bjorkenstam E, Gerdin B, Ekselius L. Excess cause- 34. Caspi A, McClay J, Moffitt TE, Mill J, Martin J, Craig IW, et al. Role
specific mortality in out-patients with personality disorder. of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children.
BJPsych Open. 2015;1:54–5. Science. 2002;297:851–4.
 UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 203

35. Byrd AL, Manuck SB. MAOA, childhood maltreatment, and anti- 58. Roberts BW, DelVecchio WF. The rank-order consistency of person-
social behavior: meta-analysis of a gene-environment interaction. ality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of lon-
Biol Psychiatry. 2014;75:9–17. gitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2000;126:3–25.
36. Cicchetti D, Rogosch FA. Gene x environment interaction and 59. Roberts BW, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W. Patterns of mean-level
resilience: effects of child maltreatment and serotonin, cortico- change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis
tropin releasing hormone, dopamine, and oxytocin genes. Dev of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2006;132:1–25.
Psychopathol. 2012;24:411–27. 60. Ekselius L, von Knorring L. Changes in personality traits during
37. Cicchetti D, Rogosch FA, Thibodeau EL. The effects of child mal- treatment with sertraline or citalopram. Br J Psychiatry. 1999;174:
treatment on early signs of antisocial behavior: genetic moder- 444–8.
ation by tryptophan hydroxylase, serotonin transporter, and 61. Tang TZ, DeRubeis RJ, Hollon SD, Amsterdam J, Shelton R, Schalet
monoamine oxidase A genes. Dev Psychopathol. 2012;24:907–28. B. Personality change during depression treatment: a placebo-con-
38. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual trolled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66:1322–30.
of mental disorders, 5th edition. DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American 62. Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Hennen J, Silk KR. The longitudinal
Psychiatric Association; 2013. course of borderline psychopathology: 6-year prospective follow-
39. Torgersen S, Kringlen E, Cramer V. The prevalence of personality up of the phenomenology of borderline personality disorder. Am
disorders in a community sample. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58: J Psychiatry. 2003;160:274–83.
590–6. 63. Seivewright H, Tyrer P, Johnson T. Change in personality status in
40. Verheul R, Widiger TA. A meta-analysis of the prevalence and neurotic disorders. Lancet. 2002;359:2253–4.
usage of the personality disorder not otherwise specified (PDNOS) 64. Lenzenweger MF, Lane MC, Loranger AW, Kessler RC. DSM-IV per-
diagnosis. J Pers Disord. 2004;18:309–19. sonality disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.
41. Newton-Howes G, Clark LA, Chanen A. Personality disorder across Biol Psychiatry. 2007;62:553–64.
the life course. Lancet. 2015;385:727–34. 65. McGlashan TH, Grilo CM, Skodol AE, Gunderson JG, Shea MT,
42. WHO. ICD-11; International statistical classification of diseases and Morey LC, et al. The Collaborative Longitudinal Personality
related health problems - eleventh revision 2018 [July 6, 2018]. Disorders Study: baseline axis I/II and II/II diagnostic co-occur-
Available from: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en. rence. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2000;102:256–64.
43. Ekselius L. Reflections of the reconceptualization of ICD-11. 66. First MB, Gibbon M, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Benjamin LS.
Empirical and practical considerations. Personal Ment Health. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV axis II personality disor-
ders (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1997.
2016;10:127–9.
67. Cuijpers P, Smit F, Penninx BW, de Graaf R, ten Have M, Beekman
44. Bach B, Sellbom M, Kongerslev M, Simonsen E, Krueger RF, Mulder
AT. Economic costs of neuroticism: a population-based study.
R. Deriving ICD-11 personality disorder domains from DSM-5 traits:
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67:1086–93.
initial attempt to harmonize two diagnostic systems. Acta
68. Olsson I, Dahl AA. Personality problems are considerably associ-
Psychiatr Scand. 2017;136:108–17.
ated with somatic morbidity and health care utilisation. Eur
45. Mulder RT, Horwood J, Tyrer P, Carter J, Joyce PR. Validating the
Psychiatry. 2009;24:442–9.
proposed ICD-11 domains. Personal Ment Health. 2016;10:84–95.
69. Fok ML, Hayes RD, Chang CK, Stewart R, Callard FJ, Moran P. Life
46. Reed GM. Progress in developing a classification of personality dis-
expectancy at birth and all-cause mortality among people with
orders for ICD-11. World Psychiatry. 2018;17:227–9.
personality disorder. J Psychosom Res. 2012;73:104–7.
47. Yang M, Coid J, Tyrer P. Personality pathology recorded by sever-
70. Moran P, Stewart R, Brugha T, Bebbington P, Bhugra D, Jenkins R,
ity: national survey. Br J Psychiatry. 2010;197:193–9.
et al. Personality disorder and cardiovascular disease: results from
48. Strickland CM, Drislane LE, Lucy M, Krueger RF, Patrick CJ.
a national household survey. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68:69–74.
Characterizing psychopathy using DSM-5 personality traits.
71. Pietrzak RH, Wagner JA, Petry NM. DSM-IV personality disorders
Assessment. 2013;20:327–38.
and coronary heart disease in older adults: results from The
49. Bjorkenstam C, Ekselius L, Berlin M, Gerdin B, Bjorkenstam E.
National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.
Suicide risk and suicide method in patients with personality disor- J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007;62:P295–9.
ders. J Psychiatr Res. 2016;83:29–36. 72. Ostby KA, Czajkowski N, Knudsen GP, Ystrom E, Gjerde LC, Kendler
50. Grilo CM, Sanislow CA, Skodol AE, Gunderson JG, Stout RL, Bender KS, et al. Personality disorders are important risk factors for dis-
DS, et al. Longitudinal diagnostic efficiency of DSM-IV criteria for ability pensioning. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014;49:
borderline personality disorder: a 2-year prospective study. Can J 2003–11.
Psychiatry. 2007;52:357–62. 73. Knudsen AK, Skogen JC, Harvey SB, Stewart R, Hotopf M, Moran P.
51. Gunderson JG. Clinical practice. Borderline personality disorder. N Personality disorders, common mental disorders and receipt of
Engl J Med. 2011;364:2037–42. disability benefits: evidence from the British National Survey of
52. Matthies SD, Philipsen A. Common ground in attention deficit Psychiatric Morbidity. Psychol Med. 2012;42:2631–40.
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and borderline personality disorder 74. Oster C, Ekselius L. Return to work after burn–a prospective study.
(BPD) – review of recent findings. Borderline Personal Disord Emot Burns. 2011;37:1117–24.
Dysregul. 2014;1:3. 75. Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Hennen J, Reich DB, Silk KR. The
53. Stone MH. The brain in overdrive: a new look at borderline and McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD): overview and impli-
related disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15:399. cations of the first six years of prospective follow-up. J Pers
54. Torgersen S. Prevalence, sociodemographics, and functional Disord. 2005;19:505–23.
impairment. In: Oldham JM, Skodol AE, Bender DS, editors. 76. Bender DS, Dolan RT, Skodol AE, Sanislow CA, Dyck IR, McGlashan
Textbook of personality disorders. Arlington, VA: American TH, et al. Treatment utilization by patients with personality disor-
Psychiatric Publishing; 2014. ders. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:295–302.
55. Huang Y, Kotov R, de Girolamo G, Preti A, Angermeyer M, Benjet 77. Powers AD, Oltmanns TF. Personality disorders and physical
C, et al. DSM-IV personality disorders in the WHO World Mental health: a longitudinal examination of physical functioning, health-
Health Surveys. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;195:46–53. care utilization, and health-related behaviors in middle-aged
56. Moran P, Jenkins R, Tylee A, Blizard R, Mann A. The prevalence of adults. J Pers Disord. 2012;26:524–38.
personality disorder among UK primary care attenders. Acta 78. Powers AD, Oltmanns TF. Borderline personality pathology and
Psychiatr Scand. 2000;102:52–7. chronic health problems in later adulthood: the mediating role of
57. Beckwith H, Moran PF, Reilly J. Personality disorder prevalence in obesity. Personal Disord. 2013;4:152–9.
psychiatric outpatients: a systematic literature review. Personal 79. Quirk SE, Berk M, Chanen AM, Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Brennan-
Ment Health. 2014;8:91–101. Olsen SL, Pasco JA, et al. Population prevalence of personality
204 L. EKSELIUS

disorder and associations with physical health comorbidities and general psychiatric management for borderline personality dis-
health care service utilization: a review. Personal Disord. 2016;7: order. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166:1365–74.
136–46. 87. Simon W. Follow-up psychotherapy outcome of patients with
80. Grigoletti L, Perini G, Rossi A, Biggeri A, Barbui C, Tansella M, et al. dependent, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disor-
Mortality and cause of death among psychiatric patients: a 20- ders: a meta-analytic review. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2009;13:
year case-register study in an area with a community-based sys- 153–65.
tem of care. Psychol Med. 2009;39:1875–84. 88. Bateman AW, Gunderson J, Mulder R. Treatment of personality
81. Harris EC, Barraclough B. Excess mortality of mental disorder. Br J disorder. Lancet. 2015;385:735–43.
Psychiatry. 1998;173:11–53. 89. Bender DS. Therapeutic alliance. In: Oldham JM, Skodol AE,
82. Nordentoft M, Branner J. Gender differences in suicidal intent and Bender DS, editors. Textbook of personality disorders. 2nd ed.
choice of method among suicide attempters. Crisis. 2008;29: Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2014. p.
209–12. 189–216.
83. Hoye A, Jacobsen BK, Hansen V. Sex differences in mortality of 90. Dixon-Gordon KL, Turner BJ, Chapman AL. Psychotherapy for per-
admitted patients with personality disorders in North Norway–a sonality disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2011;23:282–302.
prospective register study. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13:317. 91. Magnavita JJ, editor. Evidence-based treatment of personality dys-
84. Sansone RA, Sansone LA. Personality disorders in the medical set- function: principles, methods, and processes. Washington, DC:
ting. In: Oldham JM, Skodol AE, Bender DS, editors. Textbook of American Psychological Association; 2010.
personality disorders. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American 92. Meuldijk D, McCarthy A, Bourke ME, Grenyer BF. The value of psy-
Psychiatric Publishing; 2014. p. 455–73. chological treatment for borderline personality disorder: system-
85. Bamelis LL, Evers SM, Spinhoven P, Arntz A. Results of a multicen- atic review and cost offset analysis of economic evaluations. PLoS
ter randomized controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of One. 2017;12:e0171592.
schema therapy for personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2014; 93. Duggan L, Duggan C, Huband N, Smailagic N, Ferriter M, Adams
171:305–22. C. The use of pharmacological treatments for people with person-
86. McMain SF, Links PS, Gnam WH, Guimond T, Cardish RJ, Korman ality disorder: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
L, et al. A randomized trial of dialectical behavior therapy versus Personality and Mental Health. 2008;2:119–70.