Evaluating the national multisite implementation of dialectical behaviour therapy in a community setting: a mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of evidence-based interventions for borderline personality disorder in community settings is important given that individuals with this diagnosis are often extensive users of both inpatient and outpatient mental health services. Although work in this area is limited, previous studies have identified facilitators and barriers to successful DBT implementation. This study seeks to expand on previous work by evaluating a coordinated implementation of DBT in community settings at a national level. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (Damschroder et al., Implementation Sci. 4:50, 2009) provided structural guidance for this national level coordinated implementation. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was utilised to explore the national multisite implementation of DBT from the perspective of team leaders and therapists who participated in the coordinated training and subsequent implementation of DBT. Qualitative interviews with DBT team leaders (n = 8) explored their experiences of implementing DBT in their local service and was analysed using content analysis. Quantitative surveys from DBT therapists (n = 74) examined their experience of multiple aspects of the implementation process including orienting the system, and preparations and support for implementation. Frequencies of responses were calculated. Written qualitative feedback was analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were identified from the interview data: team formation, implementation preparation, client selection, service level challenges and team leader role. Participants identified team size and support for the team leader as key points for consideration in DBT implementation. Key challenges encountered were the lack of system support to facilitate phone coaching and a lack of allocated time to focus on DBT. Implementation facilitators included having dedicated team members and support from management. CONCLUSIONS: The barriers and facilitators identified in this study are broadly similar to those reported in previous research. Barriers and facilitators were identified across several domains of the CFIR and are consistent with a recently published DBT implementation Framework (Toms et al., Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 6: 2, 2019). Future research should pay particular attention to the domain of characteristics of individuals involved in DBT implementation. The results highlight the importance of a mandated service plan for the coordinated implementation of an evidence-based treatment in a public health service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03180541; Registered June 7th 2017 'retrospectively registered'.

Innovations in Practice: Dialectical behaviour therapy - skills training for emotional problem solving for adolescents (DBT STEPS-A): evaluation of a pilot implementation in Irish post-primary schools.

BACKGROUND: Whole school approaches to mental health are recommended where schools and community partners work together to support positive mental health for young people. Universal interventions which adopt this approach are limited however. This study evaluates the pilot implementation of DBT STEPS-A, a social-emotional learning programme for adolescents, in Ireland. METHOD: Data were collected at the beginning and end of the academic year from students who participated in DBT STEPS-A and a control group. A matched comparison was conducted where a subset of the data was analysed consisting of 72 adolescents aged 15-16 years from two schools in the south of Ireland. Outcomes included emotion symptoms, dysfunctional coping and DBT skill use. Linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the treatment effect (intervention vs. control). RESULTS: A statistically significant treatment effect was observed on two of four outcome measures (emotion symptom index: p = 0.011; internalising problems: p = 0.012). The effect sizes were large (Cohen's F squared = 0.65 and 0.83 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions on measures which assess constructs including depression, anxiety and social stress were found for the intervention group. The results suggest that DBT STEPS-A may yield positive effects for adolescents who complete the intervention. Feedback from adolescents and teachers suggests that refinement of content, structure and implementation may make the programme more accessible to an adolescent population.

Standard 12 month dialectical behaviour therapy for adults with borderline personality disorder in a public community mental health setting.

BACKGROUND: Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) is noted to be an intervention with a growing body of evidence that demonstrates its efficacy in treating individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Evidence for the effectiveness of DBT in publicly funded community mental health settings is lacking however. No study to our knowledge has been published on the effectiveness of a 12 month standard DBT programme without adaptations for individuals with BPD in a publicly funded community mental health setting and no study has included data across multiple time-points. The main objective of the current study was to determine if completion of a 12 month DBT programme is associated with improved outcomes in terms of borderline symptoms, anxiety, hopelessness, suicidal ideation, depression and quality of life. A secondary objective includes assessing client progress across multiple time-points throughout the treatment. METHODS: Fifty-four adult participants with BPD completed the standard DBT programme across four sites in community mental health settings in the Republic of Ireland. Data was collected by the DBT therapists working with participants and took place at 8 week intervals across the 12 month programme. To explore the effects of the intervention for participants, linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate change utilising data available from all time-points. RESULTS: At the end of the 12 month programme, significant reductions in borderline symptoms, anxiety, hopelessness, suicidal ideation and depression were observed. Increases in overall quality of life were also noted. In particular, gains were made during the first 6 months of the programme. There was a tendency for scores to slightly regress after the six-month mark which marks the start of the second delivery of the group skills cycles. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides evidence for the effectiveness of standard DBT in publicly funded community mental health settings. As participants were assessed at the end of every module, it was possible to observe trends in symptom reduction during each stage of the intervention. Despite real-world limitations of applying DBT in community settings, the results of this study are comparable with more tightly controlled studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03166579; Registered May 24th 2017 'retrospectively registered'.

Family Connections versus optimised treatment-as-usual for family members of individuals with borderline personality disorder: non-randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is challenging for family members who are often required to fulfil multiple roles such as those of advocate, caregiver, coach and guardian. To date, two uncontrolled studies by the treatment developers suggest that Family Connections (FC) is an effective programme to support, educate and teach skills to family members of individuals with BPD. However, such studies have been limited by lack of comparison to other treatment approaches. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of FC with an optimised treatment-as-usual (OTAU) programme for family members of individuals with BPD. A secondary aim was to introduce a long term follow-up to investigate if positive gains from the intervention would be maintained following programme completion. METHODS: This study was a non-randomised controlled study, with assessment of outcomes at baseline (pre-intervention) and end of programme (post-intervention) for both FC and OTAU groups, and at follow-up (3 months post-intervention; 12 or 19 months post-intervention) for the FC group. Eighty family members participated in the FC (n = 51) and the OTAU (n = 29) programmes. Outcome measures included burden, grief, depression and mastery. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess baseline differences in the outcome measures by gender, age group and type of relationship to the individual with BPD. Linear mixed-effects models were also used to estimate the treatment effect (FC versus OTAU) utilising all available data from baseline and end of programme. RESULTS: The FC group showed changes indicating significant improvement with respect to all four outcome measures (p < 0.001). The OTAU group showed changes in the same direction as the intervention group but none of the changes were statistically significant. The intervention effect was statistically significant for total burden (including both subscales; p = .02 for subjective burden and p = .048 for objective burden) and grief (p = 0.013). Improvements were maintained at follow-up for FC participants. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study indicate that FC results in statistically significant improvements on key measures while OTAU does not yield comparable changes. Lack of significant change on all measures for OTAU suggests that a three session psycho-education programme is of limited benefit. Further research is warranted on programme components and long-term supports for family members.