MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410519286 · doi:10.1177/07067437251337607

A Digital Dialectical Behaviour Therapy Intervention for Acute Suicidality in Psychiatric Inpatients: A Feasibility Randomised Controlled Study: Intervention numérique en thérapie comportementale dialectique en cas de suicidabilité aiguë de patients hospitalisés en psychiatrie : Étude de faisabilité contrôlée à répartition aléatoire

2025· article· en· W4410519286 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Brett D. M. Jones, Mary E. Kittur, Michael Mak, Wei Wang, Juveria Zaheer, Shelley McMain, Muhammad Ishrat Husain, Anne Sonley, David Gratzer, Benoit H. Mulsant, Daniel M. Blumberger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialDialectical behavior therapySuicidal ideationClinical psychologyPsychiatryIntervention (counseling)MindfulnessPsychologyRating scaleMental healthMedicinePoison controlPhysical therapySuicide preventionBorderline personality disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a digital dialectical behaviour therapy (d-DBT) skills intervention in suicidal psychiatric inpatients. METHODS: A parallel arm, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to compare d-DBT to standard care among psychiatric inpatients. Participants included adults admitted for suicidality (i.e., suicidal ideation or suicide attempt). The intervention group received a d-DBT intervention encompassing 5 online modules completed over 5 to 10 days, covering mindfulness, emotion regulation, and distress tolerance skills. Participants received an initial orientation but no formal therapy sessions. Daily check-ins were available for technical-related queries. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, adherence (≥3 modules completed), retention, and acceptability (client satisfaction questionnaire-8). Efficacy outcomes included suicidality (Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS] total score), psychological distress (K10), emotion regulation (Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-16 [DERS-16]), and clinical global impression (CGI). Linear regression models analysed group differences. RESULTS: A total of 65 participants were recruited, of which 42 were randomized, with high d-DBT adherence rates in the intervention arm (75%). The d-DBT intervention demonstrated significant reductions in C-SSRS scores (Cohen's -1.0) compared to standard of care. No significant group differences were observed in K10, DERS-16, or CGI. High acceptability and satisfaction were reported among participants randomized to d-DBT. Challenges and limitations included maintaining follow-up postdischarge and the small sample size. CONCLUSION: d-DBT is feasible to implement through an RCT and may reduce suicidality and improve mental health among psychiatric inpatients. The study highlights the importance of developing accessible, evidence-based interventions for this population. Future research should focus on long-term efficacy and expanding the intervention's appeal and accessibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→