Borderline pathology: follow-up study. Preliminary report

The work is based on the frequent use of the term "borderline" in clinical practice, in spite of the fact that this word still tends to have a controversial and ambiguous meaning. Patients who were admitted to the Psychiatric Clinic at the University of Turin between 1974 and 1980 with diagnoses of borderline pathologies or marginal psychoneurosis were followed-up in the study. The subjects in question were reexamined after an interval of between 8 and 14 years (the majority between 10-12 years). An attempt was made to compare the two diagnoses using DSM III R criteria. Family status and employment were also taken into account. It was observed that the diagnosis of marginal syndromes recorded in the patient's clinical records did not correspond to the DSM III R borderline diagnosis, and rather than referring to a precise syndrome it reflected an area of diagnostic uncertainty. This raises various questions both with regard to the role of psychiatry, and in relation to the incidence of cultural factors in influencing observations.