Cited by 112Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health services

Implementing dialectical behaviour therapy: programme survival in routine healthcare settings

Swales, Michaela Anne, Taylor, Beverley, Hibbs, Richard A. B.·2012·Journal of Mental Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence recommends considering Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT), an efficacious treatment for borderline personality disorder, especially when reduction in self-harm is a clinical priority [ NCCMH (2009) . Borderline Personality Disorder: Treatment and Management. Leicester: The British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists]. Treatment teams began using DBT in the UK in 1994. Concerns have been raised, however, about the sustainability of DBT programmes in routine clinical practice [Pitman, A., & Tyrer, P. (2008). Implementing clinical guidelines for self-harm - highlighting key issues arising from the NICE guideline for self-harm. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 81, 377-397]. AIMS: This study sought to establish the sustainability of UK DBT programmes and to explore factors that impacted on effective implementation. METHOD: All teams trained in DBT in the UK between 1994 and 2007 were contacted. Each team was categorised as either active or inactive. The date of programme cessation was established. Team leaders of active, and as far as possible inactive, programmes were interviewed about aspects of implementation. RESULTS: The survival curve demonstrated that DBT programmes ran an increased risk of failure in the second and fifth years after training. Absence of organisational support and staff turnover were the most commonly reported implementation challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Sustainable implementation of DBT, as with other evidence-based interventions, requires organisational support that incorporates a strategy for further staff training and development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/09638237.2012.689435

Cites

32 of 32 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
Swales, M. A., Taylor, B., & Hibbs, R. A. B.
Affiliations
Bangor University (GB)
Corresponding author
Swales, Michaela Anne
Venue
Journal of Mental Health
Published
2012-09-07
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
548-555
ISSN
  • 0963-8237 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0567
OpenAlex
W2161394252
Cited by
112
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
FWCI
5.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
dialectical behavior therapy, borderline personality disorder, self-harm, program sustainability, implementation barriers, organizational support, employee turnover, routine clinical practice, evidence-based interventions
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Borderline Personality Disorder, United Kingdom, Humans, Mental Health Services, Prospective Studies, Program Evaluation, Survival Analysis, Self-Injurious Behavior, Treatment Outcome

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