Cited by 86Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A systematic review and meta-analysis of dropout rates from dialectical behaviour therapy in randomized controlled trials

Open access
Dixon, Lucas J, Linardon, Jake·2020·Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

Abstract

Dropout is an important factor that may compromise the validity of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT). We conducted a targeted meta-analytic review of dropout from RCTs of DBT, with the aims of (1) calculating average rates of dropout from DBT; (2) investigating factors that moderate dropout; (3) examining whether dropout rates from DBT differ to control interventions; (4) synthesising reasons for dropout. Forty RCTs of DBT met full inclusion criteria. The weighted mean dropout rate was 28.0% (95% CI = 23.6, 32.9). Dropout rates were not related to target disorder, dropout definition, delivery format, therapist experience, and therapist adherence. Unexpectedly, dropout rates were significantly higher in trials that offered telephone coaching and utilized a therapist consultation team. DBT dropout rates did not significantly differ to dropout rates from control interventions. Few trials reported reasons for dropout, and there was little consistency in the reported reasons. Findings suggest that over one in four patients drop out from DBT in RCTs. This review highlights the urgency for future trials to explicitly report detail pertaining to patient dropout, as this may assist in the development of strategies designed to prevent future dropouts in RCTs of DBT.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/16506073.2019.1620324

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Dixon, L. J., & Linardon, J.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Linardon, Jake
Venue
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Published
2019-06-17
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
181-196
ISSN
  • 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2316
OpenAlex
W2949565761
Cited by
86
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
not receive
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
dialectical behavior therapy, treatment discontinuation, dropout rates, randomized controlled trials, telephone coaching, causes of dropout, medication adherence, therapist experience
MeSH terms
Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Humans, Patient Dropouts, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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