Engagement over telehealth: comparing attendance between dialectical behaviour therapy delivered face-to-face and via telehealth for programs in Australia and New Zealand during the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: While the COVID-19 crisis has had numerous global negative impacts, it has also presented an imperative for mental health care systems to make digital mental health interventions a part of routine care. Accordingly, through necessity, many Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) programs transitioned to telehealth, despite little information on clinical outcomes compared with face-to-face treatment delivery. This study examined differences in client engagement (i.e. attendance) of DBT: delivered face-to-face prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown in Australia and New Zealand; delivered via telehealth during the lockdown; and delivered post-lockdown. Our primary outcomes were to compare: [1] client attendance rates of DBT individual therapy delivered face-to-face with delivery via telehealth, and [2] client attendance rates of DBT skills training delivered face-to-face compared with delivery via telehealth. METHODS: DBT programs across Australia and New Zealand provided de-identified data for a total of 143 individuals who received DBT treatment provided via telehealth or face-to-face over a six-month period in 2020. Data included attendance rates of DBT individual therapy sessions; attendance rates of DBT skills training sessions as well as drop-out rates and First Nations status of clients. RESULTS: A mixed effects logistic regression model revealed no significant differences between attendance rates for clients attending face-to-face sessions or telehealth sessions for either group therapy or individual therapy. This result was found for clients who identified as First Nations persons and those who didn't identify as First Nations persons. CONCLUSIONS: Clients were as likely to attend their DBT sessions over telehealth as they were face-to-face during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic. These findings provide preliminary evidence that providing DBT over telehealth may be a viable option to increase access for clients, particularly in areas where face-to-face treatment is not available. Further, based on the data collected in this study, we can be less concerned that offering telehealth treatment will compromise attendance rates compared to face-to-face treatment. Further research is needed comparing clinical outcomes between treatments delivered face-to-face compared delivery via telehealth.

Acceptability of Telehealth for Multidiagnostic Suicidal Patients in a Real-World Dialectical Behavior Therapy Clinic During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) delivered through telehealth to complex, suicidal patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We surveyed 163 adult participants enrolled in outpatient services at a private, free-standing DBT clinic certified by the DBT-Linehan Board of Certification for its fidelity to the treatment. Treatment satisfaction was assessed, as well as ease of telehealth over time, differences in satisfaction between patients who had previously experienced face-to-face treatment and those who had only experienced telehealth, patients' beliefs regarding the impact of telehealth on their progress, and preference for face-to-face versus telehealth services. Additionally, participants' reasons for liking and disliking telehealth were reported. Results: The average overall satisfaction rating was 82.26 (±18.71) on a 100-point scale. Factors identified as being relevant to satisfaction included increased access to care, saving time and money, and increased comfort participating in therapy from home. Factors identified as relevant to dissatisfaction included feeling less connected to therapists and other patients. The majority of participants reported that telehealth positively impacted or did not impact treatment progress. Satisfaction was significantly related to participants' perception of telehealth's impact on progress in treatment. Demographic variables were also included in the analyses, but were unrelated to satisfaction. Conclusions: Findings indicate that, from the point of view of consumer satisfaction, telehealth appears satisfactory for delivery of DBT and may play an increased role in behavioral health care postpandemic.

Getting DBT online down under: The experience of Australian and New Zealand Dialectical Behaviour Therapy programmes during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) is an intensive and multi-modal intervention developed for individuals with multiple comorbidities and high-risk behaviours. During pandemic-related lockdowns, many DBT services transitioned to delivering treatment via telehealth, but some did not. The current study sought to explore the experience of DBT teams in Australia and New Zealand who did and did not transition to telehealth during the early stages of the COVID19 pandemic, as the majority of research on DBT via telehealth has originated from North America, and focussed on therapists who did make this transition. DBT team leaders in Australia and New Zealand completed a survey with open-ended questions about the barriers they encountered to delivering DBT via telehealth, and for those teams that implemented telehealth, the solutions to those barriers. Respondents were also asked about specific barriers encountered by Indigenous and Pacific people service users. Of the 73 team leaders who took part, 56 reported providing either individual therapy, skills training or both modalities via video-call during lockdown. Themes emerging from perceived barriers affecting just DBT providers included the assessment & management of emotions and high-risk behaviours, threats to privacy and information security posed by telehealth, logistical issues related to remote sessions, and the remote management of therapy-interfering behaviour. Themes emerging from perceived barriers affecting both providers and service users included disruptions to therapeutic alliance, lack of willingness, lack of technical knowledge, lack of private spaces to do DBT via telehealth, and lack of resources. The solutions most frequently cited were the provision of education and training for therapists and service users in the use of telehealth, and the provision of resources to access telehealth. These findings are relevant to clinical delivery of DBT, as well as planning and funding for DBT telehealth services.

The effect of twice-weekly versus once-weekly sessions of either imagery rescripting or eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for adults with PTSD from childhood trauma (IREM-Freq): a study protocol for an international randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Trauma-focused treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are commonly delivered either once or twice a week. Initial evidence suggests that session frequency affects treatment response, but very few trials have investigated the effect of session frequency. The present study's aim is to compare treatment outcomes of twice-weekly versus once-weekly sessions of two treatments for PTSD related to childhood trauma, imagery rescripting (ImRs) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). We hypothesize that both treatments will be more effective when delivered twice than once a week. How session frequency impacts treatment response, whether treatment type moderates the frequency effect, and which treatment type and frequency works best for whom will also be investigated. METHODS: The IREM-Freq trial is an international multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in mental healthcare centers across Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 220 participants, who will be randomized to one of four conditions: (1) EMDR once a week, (2) EMDR twice a week, (3) ImRs once a week, or (4) ImRs twice a week. Treatment consists of 12 sessions. Data are collected at baseline until one-year follow-up. The primary outcome measure is clinician-rated PTSD symptom severity. Secondary outcome measures include self-reported PTSD symptom severity, complex PTSD symptoms, trauma-related cognitions and emotions, depressive symptoms, dissociation, quality of life, and functioning. Process measures include memory, learning, therapeutic alliance, motivation, reluctance, and avoidance. Additional investigations will focus on predictors of treatment outcome and PTSD severity, change mechanisms of EMDR and ImRs, the role of emotions, cognitions, and memory, the optimization of treatment selection, learned helplessness, perspectives of patients and therapists, the network structure of PTSD symptoms, and sudden treatment gains. DISCUSSION: This study will extend our knowledge on trauma-focused treatments for PTSD related to childhood trauma and, more specifically, the importance of session frequency. More insight into the optimal session frequency could lead to improved treatment outcomes and less dropout, and in turn, to a reduction of healthcare costs. Moreover, the additional investigations will broaden our understanding of how the treatments work and variables that affect treatment outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL6965, registered 25/04/2018.

Lessons Learned Conducting Dialectical Behavior Therapy via Telehealth in the Age of COVID-19.

Given the severity and suicide risk of patients typically treated by Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and the absence of guidelines regarding delivery of DBT via telehealth, it is crucial that the DBT treatment community gather and rapidly disseminate information about effective strategies for delivering DBT via telehealth. The current study surveyed DBT providers (N = 200) to understand challenges and lessons learned as they transitioned to conducting DBT via telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Open-ended responses to challenges and lessons-learned were coded. Most frequently noted challenges were Therapy-Interfering Behaviors and elements related to the provision of Individual Therapy and Skills Training Group. The majority of providers offered advice for implementing group skills training, avoiding or overcoming therapist burnout, and emphasized continued adherence to treatment principles, even in the context of this new treatment modality. Overall, this qualitative study marks a starting point on identifying best practices delivering DBT via telehealth for which it is anticipated that clinical recommendations in this area will evolve, informed by clinician, researcher, and consumer input.

A randomised trial of dialectical behaviour therapy and the conversational model for the treatment of borderline personality disorder with recent suicidal and/or non-suicidal self-injury: An effectiveness study in an Australian public mental health service.

OBJECTIVES: Borderline personality disorder is a complex mental disorder that is associated with a high degree of suffering for the individual. Dialectical behaviour therapy has been studied in the largest number of controlled trials for treatment of individuals with borderline personality disorder. The conversational model is a psychodynamic treatment also developed specifically for treatment of borderline personality disorder. We report on the outcomes of a randomised trial comparing dialectical behaviour therapy and conversational model for treatment of borderline personality disorder in a routine clinical setting. METHOD: Participants had a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and a minimum of three suicidal and/or non-suicidal self-injurious episodes in the previous 12 months. Consenting individuals were randomised to either dialectical behaviour therapy or conversational model and contracted for 14 months of treatment (n = 162 commenced therapy). Dialectical behaviour therapy involved participants attending weekly individual therapy, weekly group skills training and having access to after-hours phone coaching. Conversational model involved twice weekly individual therapy. Assessments occurred at baseline, mid-treatment (7 months) and post-treatment (14 months). Assessments were conducted by a research assistant blind to treatment condition. Primary outcomes were change in suicidal and non-suicidal self-injurious episodes and severity of depression. We hypothesised that dialectical behaviour therapy would be more effective in reducing suicidal and non-suicidal self-injurious behaviour and that conversational model would be more effective in reducing depression. RESULTS: Both treatments showed significant improvement over time across the 14 months duration of therapy in suicidal and non-suicidal self-injury and depression scores. There were no significant differences between treatment models in reduction of suicidal and non-suicidal self-injury. However, dialectical behaviour therapy was associated with significantly greater reductions in depression scores compared to conversational model. CONCLUSION: This research adds to the accumulating body of knowledge of psychotherapeutic treatment of borderline personality disorder and supports the use of both dialectical behaviour therapy and conversational model as effective treatments in routine clinical settings, with some additional benefits for dialectical behaviour therapy for persons with co-morbid depression.