Barriers and facilitators affecting the sustainability of dialectical behaviour therapy programmes: A qualitative study of clinician perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".