Feasibility and Efficacy of Brief DBT Intervention for Adults With Borderline Personality Disorder/Traits: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard, comprehensive dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) has been well established as an effective and evidence-based treatment for borderline personality disorder (BPD). As a comprehensive and longer term treatment (e.g., 6-12 months or more), DBT can be challenging to implement in resource-strapped public healthcare settings. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine existing literature to assess the efficacy and feasibility of abbreviated DBT programs (16 weeks or fewer in duration, no more than one group session per week). Literature searches yielded 22 studies (20 journal articles and 2 dissertations) meeting criteria for inclusion. Findings indicated that abbreviated forms of DBT are overall effective in improving symptoms of BPD, general psychiatric symptoms including depression and anxiety, and general functioning. Attrition rates varied widely (between 0% and 60%). Of note, the majority of studies reviewed were observational, had small sample sizes, and used varied outcome measures focusing on preintervention and postintervention symptom scores. In this article, we discuss the current state of the literature and suggest future directions for the efficient implementation of DBT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".