Cited by 16Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychiatric care and mental health servicesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Barriers and facilitators affecting the sustainability of dialectical behaviour therapy programmes: A qualitative study of clinician perspectives

Popowich, Alexandra D., Mushquash, Aislin R., Pearson, Erin, Schmidt, Fred, Mushquash, Christopher J.·2020·Counselling and Psychotherapy Research

Abstract

Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) is a psychological treatment developed for individuals experiencing chronic suicidality and high‐risk behaviours. Despite the substantial evidence supporting the effectiveness of DBT, many programmes have problems with its sustainability. The goals of the current qualitative study were to identify factors that impact the sustainability of DBT programmes within a publicly funded mental health system and identify factors that are particularly relevant for youth DBT programmes. Interviews with trained adult and youth DBT clinicians (N = 31) were conducted to explore their experiences providing DBT. Three major themes that emerged as barriers to the sustainability of DBT programmes included the following: systemic challenges, conflicts within the consultation teams and clinician burnout. Factors influencing the success of DBT programmes included the following: systemic support, clinician commitment and “buy in”, and team cohesion. Factors specific to providing DBT with youth (i.e. level of commitment, simplifying the language, and parental investment) and recommendations for sustainability for adults and youth programmes were also identified. Findings of this study provide valuable information on factors impacting DBT programmes within the unique context of a Canadian mental health service system, where community‐based services are publicly funded. These findings have clear clinical utility and can be used to generate solutions to clinicians' perceived barriers and to foster perceived facilitators within similar contexts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/capr.12250

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Popowich, A. D., Mushquash, A. R., Pearson, E., Schmidt, F., & Mushquash, C. J.
Affiliations
  • Lakehead University (CA)
  • Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Mushquash, Aislin R.
Venue
Counselling and Psychotherapy Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-25
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
68-80
ISSN
  • 1473-3145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1746-1405
OpenAlex
W2963826818
Cited by
15
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Counselling and Psychotherapy Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
dialectical behavior therapy, treatment sustainability, barriers and facilitators, clinician perspectives, clinician burnout, team cohesion, systemic support, publicly funded mental health services, community-based services, suicidality, parental involvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review