Cited by 9Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Health related quality of life for young people receiving dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT): a routine outcome-monitoring pilot

Open access
Swales, M., Hibbs, R. A. B., Bryning, L., Hastings, R. P.·2016·SpringerPlus

Abstract

PURPOSE: Adults presenting with borderline personality disorder (BPD) score poorly on measures of health related quality of life (HRQoL). Little is known about HRQoL in adolescents with BPD type presentations and how treatment impacts quality of life. Our primary aim was to use routinely collected quality-of-life outcome measures pre and post-treatment in dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) for adolescents to address this gap. Secondary aims were to benchmark these data against EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D™) outcomes for clients treated in clinical trials and to assess the potential of the EQ-5D™ as a benchmarking tool. METHOD: Four adolescent DBT teams, routinely collecting outcome data using a pseudonymised secure web-based system, supplied data from consecutive discharges. RESULTS: Young people in the DBT programmes (n = 43) had severely impaired HRQoL scores that were lower at programme admission than those reported in published studies using the EQ-5D™ in adults with a BPD diagnosis and in one study of adolescents treated for depression. 40 % of adolescents treated achieved Reliable Clinical Change. HRQoL improved between admission and discharge with a large effect size. These results were not statistically significant when clustering in programme outcomes was accounted for. CONCLUSION: Young people treated in NHS DBT programmes for BPD type presentations had poorer HRQoL than adults with a BPD diagnosis and adolescents with depression treated in published clinical trials. The EQ-5D™ detected reliable change in this group of adolescents. Programme outcome clustering suggests that both the measure and the web-based monitoring system provide a mechanism for benchmarking clinical programmes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40064-016-2826-9

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Post-treatment outcomes are consistent with previous studies showing that brief DBT formats result in significant decrease in depression, hopelessness, and quality of life at end of treatment.

    “Post-treatment outcomes are consistent with previous studies showing that brief DBT formats result in a significant decrease in these clinical dimensions at the end of the treatment (Stanley et al., 2007; Mehlum et al., 2014; Swales et al., 2016; Sahranavard & Miri, 2018).”

    From Feasibility, Acceptability and Preliminary Efficacy of Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Autistic Adults without Intellectual Disability: A Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as Swales et al., 2016

    The Background reports that a 16-week DBT-A trial found a significant decrease in depression. It does not establish a decrease in hopelessness. The Discussion and Results report that quality of life improved rather than decreased in this pilot, and that the improvement was not statistically significant after accounting for clustering; the pilot also had a longer average treatment duration than the brief format discussed. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Heard HL (2000) Cost-effectiveness of dialectical behavior therapy in the treatment of borderline personality disorder. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington
  2. NCCMH Borderline personality disorder: treatment and management 2009 Leicester The British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists 21796831

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Swales, M., Hibbs, R. A. B., Bryning, L., & Hastings, R. P.
Affiliations
  • Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Swales, M.
Venue
SpringerPlus
Published
2016-07-20
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
1137-1137
ISSN
2193-1801 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2478248526
Cited by
9
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SpringerPlus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Knowledge Economy Skills Scholarship Programme (KESS Mini 016)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
health-related quality of life, dialectical behavior therapy, borderline personality disorder, adolescents, routine outcome monitoring, EQ-5D, reliable change

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