53 Adolescent Dialectical Behaviour Therapy: Levels of Care

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS Paediatrics & child health Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1093/pch/pxad055.053
Olivia MacLeod, Marjorie Robb, Anne Gillies
{"title":"53 Adolescent Dialectical Behaviour Therapy: Levels of Care","authors":"Olivia MacLeod, Marjorie Robb, Anne Gillies","doi":"10.1093/pch/pxad055.053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction/Background A growing body of research supports the efficacy of Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) for adolescents with various mental health diagnoses, but a traditional DBT program uses intensive resources (weekly individual and group therapy). To see whether a less intensive program could benefit certain participants, a complementary program called “DBT Lite” was designed and implemented at a large acute care Children’s Hospital. The group format (youth and parents together), therapeutic principals and coping skills taught were the same (based on “DBT Skills Manual for Adolescents”, Miller & Rathus, 2014), but DBT Lite involved only group therapy, and was offered over a shorter time frame (12 weeks vs. 19 weeks). Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of “DBT Full” and “DBT Lite” on improving emotion regulation and family functioning/parental stress and decreasing emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations among adolescents age 13-17 with mental health diagnoses. Participants were not randomized; the treatment was selected according to severity of illness. We hypothesized that both treatment programs would show benefits but that “Full DBT” would result in greater improvements than “DBT Lite” due to its more comprehensive treatment model. Design/Methods Data was collected prospectively pre- and post-treatment from youth and parents participating in both programs over a 3-year period. The primary outcome measures were the DERS (Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale), the FACES-IV (Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale, 4th Ed), and the PSS (Parental Stress Scale). Results were analyzed using paired-sample t-tests. We also examined ED and hospital admission data 6 months prior to starting the group and 6 months following completion of the group. Results In “Full DBT”, emotion regulation improved in both youth (n=9) and parents (n=12) post-treatment (DERS total score: youth p=0.02; parents p=0.01). Parents reported significant improvements on measures of parental stress (PSS p=0.002), and family functioning (FACES-IV family communication p=0.000, satisfaction p=0.008, and overall family functioning p=0.002). However, these improvements were not significant in youth measures. In “DBT Lite”, youth (n=16) and parents (n=17) did not report significant improvements in emotion regulation or family functioning, but did report decreases in parental stress (PSS p=0.005). Both groups resulted in measurable differences in acute care use: the percentage of patients with ED presentations 6 months pre- vs. 6 months post-group decreased from 70% to 27% for “Lite”, and 81% to 50% for “Full”. The percentage of patients requiring hospital admission decreased from 13% to 10% for “Lite”, and 56% to 28% for “Full”. Conclusion These results suggest that although “DBT Lite” may not have the same family functioning and emotion regulation benefits as its full-service counterpart, it can still reduce parental stress and decrease use of acute care resources. This study confirms the patient and family benefits of a full DBT program, but also has important implications for centres with limited mental health resources, given that “Full DBT” requires 38 clinician hours per patient to deliver, versus 12 hours for “DBT Lite”.","PeriodicalId":19730,"journal":{"name":"Paediatrics & child health","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatrics & child health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxad055.053","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Introduction/Background A growing body of research supports the efficacy of Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) for adolescents with various mental health diagnoses, but a traditional DBT program uses intensive resources (weekly individual and group therapy). To see whether a less intensive program could benefit certain participants, a complementary program called “DBT Lite” was designed and implemented at a large acute care Children’s Hospital. The group format (youth and parents together), therapeutic principals and coping skills taught were the same (based on “DBT Skills Manual for Adolescents”, Miller & Rathus, 2014), but DBT Lite involved only group therapy, and was offered over a shorter time frame (12 weeks vs. 19 weeks). Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of “DBT Full” and “DBT Lite” on improving emotion regulation and family functioning/parental stress and decreasing emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations among adolescents age 13-17 with mental health diagnoses. Participants were not randomized; the treatment was selected according to severity of illness. We hypothesized that both treatment programs would show benefits but that “Full DBT” would result in greater improvements than “DBT Lite” due to its more comprehensive treatment model. Design/Methods Data was collected prospectively pre- and post-treatment from youth and parents participating in both programs over a 3-year period. The primary outcome measures were the DERS (Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale), the FACES-IV (Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale, 4th Ed), and the PSS (Parental Stress Scale). Results were analyzed using paired-sample t-tests. We also examined ED and hospital admission data 6 months prior to starting the group and 6 months following completion of the group. Results In “Full DBT”, emotion regulation improved in both youth (n=9) and parents (n=12) post-treatment (DERS total score: youth p=0.02; parents p=0.01). Parents reported significant improvements on measures of parental stress (PSS p=0.002), and family functioning (FACES-IV family communication p=0.000, satisfaction p=0.008, and overall family functioning p=0.002). However, these improvements were not significant in youth measures. In “DBT Lite”, youth (n=16) and parents (n=17) did not report significant improvements in emotion regulation or family functioning, but did report decreases in parental stress (PSS p=0.005). Both groups resulted in measurable differences in acute care use: the percentage of patients with ED presentations 6 months pre- vs. 6 months post-group decreased from 70% to 27% for “Lite”, and 81% to 50% for “Full”. The percentage of patients requiring hospital admission decreased from 13% to 10% for “Lite”, and 56% to 28% for “Full”. Conclusion These results suggest that although “DBT Lite” may not have the same family functioning and emotion regulation benefits as its full-service counterpart, it can still reduce parental stress and decrease use of acute care resources. This study confirms the patient and family benefits of a full DBT program, but also has important implications for centres with limited mental health resources, given that “Full DBT” requires 38 clinician hours per patient to deliver, versus 12 hours for “DBT Lite”.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
青少年辩证行为治疗:护理水平
越来越多的研究支持辩证行为疗法(DBT)对各种心理健康诊断的青少年的疗效,但传统的DBT项目使用密集的资源(每周个人和团体治疗)。为了了解一个不那么密集的项目是否能使某些参与者受益,我们在一家大型急症儿童医院设计并实施了一个名为“DBT Lite”的补充项目。小组形式(青少年和家长在一起)、治疗原则和所教授的应对技巧都是一样的(基于《青少年DBT技能手册》,Miller &Rathus, 2014),但DBT生活只涉及团体治疗,并且提供的时间较短(12周对19周)。目的本研究旨在比较13-17岁青少年心理健康诊断中“全面DBT”与“生活DBT”在改善情绪调节、家庭功能/父母压力、减少急诊就诊和住院方面的效果。参与者不是随机的;根据病情的严重程度选择治疗方法。我们假设两种治疗方案都会显示出益处,但由于其更全面的治疗模式,“完全DBT”会比“轻度DBT”产生更大的改善。设计/方法在3年的时间里,前瞻性地收集了参与两个项目的青少年和父母在治疗前后的数据。主要观察指标为DERS(情绪调节困难量表)、FACES-IV(家庭适应与凝聚力量表,第4版)和PSS(父母压力量表)。结果采用配对样本t检验进行分析。我们还检查了组开始前6个月和组结束后6个月的ED和住院数据。结果在“完全DBT”治疗后,青少年(n=9)和父母(n=12)的情绪调节均有改善(DERS总分:青少年p=0.02;父母p = 0.01)。父母报告在父母压力(PSS p=0.002)和家庭功能(FACES-IV家庭沟通p=0.000,满意度p=0.008,整体家庭功能p=0.002)方面有显著改善。然而,这些改善在青少年测量中并不显著。在“DBT生活”中,青少年(n=16)和父母(n=17)没有报告情绪调节或家庭功能的显着改善,但确实报告了父母压力的减少(PSS p=0.005)。两组在急症护理使用方面都有明显的差异:治疗前6个月和治疗后6个月出现ED的患者比例从70%降至27%,而治疗后6个月则从81%降至50%。需要住院治疗的病人比例,"终身"从13%降至10%,"全面"从56%降至28%。结论“生活型DBT”虽然在家庭功能和情绪调节方面不如“全服务型DBT”,但仍能减轻家长压力,减少急症护理资源的使用。这项研究证实了全面DBT计划对患者和家庭的好处,但也对精神卫生资源有限的中心具有重要意义,因为“全面DBT”需要每位患者38个临床医生小时的时间,而“终身DBT”需要12个小时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Paediatrics & child health
Paediatrics & child health 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
208
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Paediatrics & Child Health (PCH) is the official journal of the Canadian Paediatric Society, and the only peer-reviewed paediatric journal in Canada. Its mission is to advocate for the health and well-being of all Canadian children and youth and to educate child and youth health professionals across the country. PCH reaches 8,000 paediatricians, family physicians and other child and youth health professionals, as well as ministers and officials in various levels of government who are involved with child and youth health policy in Canada.
期刊最新文献
A father's reflections on grief, suffering, and community. Cow's milk protein allergy in infants and children. Goals of care conversations and advance care planning for paediatric patients living with serious illness. L'allergie aux protéines du lait de vache chez les nourrissons et les enfants. Les objectifs des échanges sur les soins et de la planification préalable des soins chez les patients d'âge pédiatrique atteints d'une maladie grave.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1