Dialectical behaviour therapy skills training for individuals with substance use disorder: A systematic review.
Saved in:
| Title: | Dialectical behaviour therapy skills training for individuals with substance use disorder: A systematic review. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Warner, Niamh (AUTHOR), Murphy, Mike (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Drug & Alcohol Review. Feb2022, Vol. 41 Issue 2, p501-516. 16p. 1 Diagram, 3 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Behavior therapy, Dialectical behavior therapy, Substance abuse, Emotion regulation, Randomized controlled trials, Database searching |
| Abstract: | Issues: Dialectical behaviour therapy skills training (DBT‐ST) is currently being implemented as a standalone intervention for substance use disorders (SUD), despite limited empirical evidence to support its efficacy in this context. This review aimed to investigate the feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of DBT‐ST for SUD. Approach: English language journal articles which focused on quantitative evaluations of DBT‐ST for SUD were identified by systematically searching five databases; Medline, Psychinfo, Pubmed, The Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Relevant grey literature was also identified using Google Scholar. The titles, abstracts and full‐text of retrieved articles were independently screened by both authors. The nine retained articles were read in‐depth and quality assessed by both authors. Data were synthesised narratively. Key Findings: Interventions described as DBT‐ST for SUD were implemented and adapted differently across studies. Despite these inconsistencies, DBT‐ST was generally found to be acceptable and feasible for people with SUD. Findings offered preliminary support for DBT‐ST for substance use reduction and emotion regulation enhancement for this cohort. Findings must be considered in light of the quality of studies which ranged from weak to strong. Implications: Positive outcomes indicate that more rigorous studies, including large randomised controlled trials comparing DBT‐ST to other evidence‐based interventions for SUDs, are warranted. Conclusions: Despite offering preliminary support for DBT‐ST for SUD, the lack of controls, small samples and inconsistent adaptations of DBT‐ST across studies, limits capacity to draw causal conclusions or make specific recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Drug & Alcohol Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Issues: Dialectical behaviour therapy skills training (DBT‐ST) is currently being implemented as a standalone intervention for substance use disorders (SUD), despite limited empirical evidence to support its efficacy in this context. This review aimed to investigate the feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of DBT‐ST for SUD. Approach: English language journal articles which focused on quantitative evaluations of DBT‐ST for SUD were identified by systematically searching five databases; Medline, Psychinfo, Pubmed, The Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Relevant grey literature was also identified using Google Scholar. The titles, abstracts and full‐text of retrieved articles were independently screened by both authors. The nine retained articles were read in‐depth and quality assessed by both authors. Data were synthesised narratively. Key Findings: Interventions described as DBT‐ST for SUD were implemented and adapted differently across studies. Despite these inconsistencies, DBT‐ST was generally found to be acceptable and feasible for people with SUD. Findings offered preliminary support for DBT‐ST for substance use reduction and emotion regulation enhancement for this cohort. Findings must be considered in light of the quality of studies which ranged from weak to strong. Implications: Positive outcomes indicate that more rigorous studies, including large randomised controlled trials comparing DBT‐ST to other evidence‐based interventions for SUDs, are warranted. Conclusions: Despite offering preliminary support for DBT‐ST for SUD, the lack of controls, small samples and inconsistent adaptations of DBT‐ST across studies, limits capacity to draw causal conclusions or make specific recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09595236 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/dar.13362 |
