Effectiveness of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) in a Forensic Psychiatric Hospital

  • Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
  • April 2024,
  • JAAPL.240009-24;
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.240009-24

Abstract

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) has strong evidence in support of its effectiveness in reducing suicide attempts, anger, impulsivity, and substance abuse. It has been implemented in a variety of forensic settings to help with these challenges, despite limited research on the efficacy of DBT within this population. The current study presents treatment outcomes from an established DBT program in a maximum-security forensic facility. Outcomes included self-reported functioning, behavioral outcomes, and assessment of DBT skills knowledge among inpatients who participated in either comprehensive DBT or DBT skills training. Behaviorally, the study found a significant decrease in rates of patient assaults and reduced use of “Pro re nata” (PRN) medication for anxiety or agitation over the course of DBT treatment. During the first six months of treatment, self-reported symptoms of depression, emotional and behavioral dysregulation, and psychological inflexibility significantly decreased. Within this time frame, patients also displayed a significant decrease in the use of dysfunctional coping skills and a significant increase in knowledge pertaining to emotion regulation and interpersonal effectiveness. The results of this study largely support the use of DBT in forensic settings.

The treatment of patients in forensic facilities presents a unique set of challenges. These patients are mandated for treatment because of their legal situation, and often the treatment focus is on addressing court-related goals such as restoration of competency or treating symptoms of severe mental illness. Interventions are designed to address many concurrent objectives, including psychiatric rehabilitation, patient safety, and reducing re-offense risk. Further complicating matters is the high prevalence of comorbid, chronic, and complex conditions such as psychosis, personality disorders, and substance use disorders.1,–,8

Forensic psychiatric hospitals, in which patients are remanded by the criminal justice system, have long been discussed in connection with violence or aggression that is both quantitatively and qualitatively different than typical inpatient settings.9,–,11 A multi-hospital study analyzing the prevalence of physical violence in a state psychiatric system over the span of three years found that 26 percent of forensic patients had committed at least one act of patient assault and 16 percent of patients had at least one incident of staff assault.12 These incidents not only cause physical and emotional harm to staff within forensic hospitals,13,–,17 but can also create an atmosphere that leads other patients to become more symptomatic and consequently behave more violently toward staff and peers as a result of feeling unsafe.18,–,21

Research demonstrating the harmful effects of patient seclusion and restraint has led regulatory bodies such as The Joint Commission (TJC) and The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to emphasize less physically coercive measures for managing aggressive or violent behavior on inpatient units.22,–,24 A commonly used pharmacological intervention for patient agitation and potential violence or aggression is “Pro re nata” (PRN), “when required” or “as needed” medication. A PRN is a written order for psychotropic medications that can be given to patients outside of prescheduled administration times at the discretion of nursing staff or at the patient’s request based on immediate need.25,26 PRN use within forensic hospitals is common practice.27 The most common PRN medications are benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and sedatives that aid in reducing patient agitation, anxiety, symptoms of psychosis, and violent behaviors.28,–,34 Studies that have investigated rates of PRN usage in forensic hospitals found that 37 percent of patients had received a sedative PRN over a two-week period.35 The use of PRNs has become increasingly controversial because of concerns of dependency, abuse, administration errors, overmedication, and ambiguity surrounding the decision to prescribe or administer such medications.36,–,41 Research suggests that combining pharmacological interventions like PRNs with psychosocial interventions can be effective in minimizing the risk and negative effects associated with PRN use, as well as improving overall patient quality of life.42,43

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) is an evidence-based treatment developed for individuals presenting with pervasive and persistent emotional dysregulation.44,–,46 It integrates Eastern mindfulness practices with traditional cognitive behavioral interventions such as problem solving, skills training, exposure therapy, and cognitive modification. Although originally developed by Marsha Linehan for individuals with chronic suicidality and those diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD), DBT gained popularity among those in forensic settings almost immediately after its inception47,48 because of its demonstrated effectiveness treating individuals with substance use disorders,49,–,51 antisocial personality traits,52 and some emotional manifestations of psychopathy.53,54 Research shows involvement in DBT skills training programs reduces self-injurious behavior,55,56 impulsivity,57,–,59 violent behavior,60 aggressive behavior,55,61,–,63 disciplinary actions,55,64 anxiety,65,–,67 and depression,65,–,67 while increasing coping skills.62,63,68,–,70 Studies investigating the effectiveness of DBT within inpatient settings specifically have found that patients have fewer behavioral incidents, including aggression toward others, and use less psychotropic PRN medication.71,–,73

McCann et al.52 posit that DBT is an intervention that aligns well with treatment needs in inpatient forensic settings. DBT utilizes many principles of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), an intervention which has reduced recidivism by up to 55 percent,74,–,79 especially for individuals at high risk of reoffending due to dynamic risk factors.80 More recently, DBT has been recognized as having many similarities to one of the most prominent and evidence-based risk reduction models, the Risk Need Responsivity Model.81,82 DBT directly targets reduction of life-threatening behaviors such as physical aggression, suicidality, and nonsuicidal self-injury. DBT’s efficacy in reducing these behaviors helps patients move to less restrictive settings, and has been shown to positively affect staff burnout,83,–,87 which is common in high-stress environments such as forensic hospitals.88

Research on the efficacy of DBT in forensic contexts is limited and fraught with methodological concerns, such as small sample sizes, lack of participant follow-up, randomization, comparison groups, and treatment fidelity monitoring.89 In addition, there is a lack of consistency between studies on the frequency, duration, and modes of treatments being offered.48,90 Comprehensive DBT (C-DBT) must address five treatment functions. The first is client motivation, which is typically accomplished through individual DBT therapy. The second is skill building, which is often addressed through skills training groups. The third is generalizability of skills, which is often addressed through phone or milieu coaching. The fourth is structuring the environment, and the fifth is building motivation and capability of the treatment providers via weekly DBT team consultation meetings. Because of the lack of resources and competing administrative demands, it is more common within forensic settings to provide standalone skills training, which has shown efficacy in reducing a variety of problems targeted in DBT, rather than comprehensive DBT.66,91,–,93

The current study explored the effectiveness of an inpatient DBT program in a maximum security forensic psychiatric hospital. The program offered standalone skills training or comprehensive DBT based upon individual patient needs. The present study aimed to examine self-reported functioning throughout program participation, assess DBT knowledge acquisition through pre-post testing, and explore the relationship between involvement in DBT treatment and empirical outcomes. It was hypothesized that patients would experience fewer self-reported mood-related mental health symptoms, have greater perceived ability to cope with day-to-day problems, and demonstrate gains in DBT knowledge positively associated with time in the program. Finally, it was hypothesized that patients would use fewer PRN medications for anxiety or agitation and have fewer incident reports as they spent more time in DBT treatment.

Method

Participants and Procedure

This study was reviewed and approved by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Institutional Review Board. The sample consisted of adult inpatients at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry (CFP) in Saline, Michigan who participated in DBT treatment between 2010 and 2023. The CFP inpatient program provides treatment for individuals found incompetent to stand trial (IST) or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), and for those individuals who are unable to be treated at other less restrictive state psychiatric hospitals. Patients were referred to the DBT program by their primary social worker or treatment team if identified as individuals with behavioral or emotional dysregulation. Priority was given to patients engaging in life-threatening behaviors such as violence, self-harm, or severe behavioral dyscontrol. Patients were excluded from the DBT program if psychotic symptoms prevented them from attending to reality to such a degree that they could not benefit from treatment. Patients were also excluded if they presented with intellectual, developmental, or cognitive difficulties that prevented them from learning new information.

Over the years, the DBT treatment team at the CFP has included clinicians from psychology, psychiatry, social work, recreational therapy, nursing, and direct care staff. Team members were instructed in Linehan’s DBT model through either internal or external trainings by a DBT-LBC (Linehan Board Certified) clinician. Team members providing individual DBT therapy were licensed clinicians who completed more intensive training in principles and protocols of DBT. In keeping with model fidelity, the treatment team met weekly for DBT team consultation meetings. The team implemented Linehan’s “Schedule 1: Standard Adult DBT Skills Training”94 program, which consisted of weekly two-hour skills training groups covering the four modules (mindfulness, distress tolerance, emotion regulation, and interpersonal effectiveness) over the span of six months (repeated once). Patients were assigned to skills training only or to comprehensive DBT (with weekly hour-long individual DBT therapy and more focused coaching) based on the severity of their presenting problems. The skills training groups followed an established six-month schedule, and group members could be admitted or discharged on a continuing basis. The skills groups were gender co-ed with group sizes ranging from three to 16. Groups were held at the hospital in either a common space or on the unit.

To assess the efficacy of DBT, a treatment outcome program was implemented which involved administering assessment packets (self-report measures and knowledge quizzes) to patients when they first entered treatment and at the end of each six-month skill-training cycle. Behavioral data were collected in four three-month increments from the electronic medical record (Q1 = start of treatment through month three; Q2 = month four through month six; Q3 = month seven through month nine; Q4 = month nine through month 12). Patient data were excluded from the analysis if not collected within 30 days of the start of DBT intervention or the end of each six-month cycle, and only data from a patient’s first CFP admission were included.

Measures

Self-Report Measures

The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II)95 is a seven-item self-report questionnaire. It measures the ability to adapt to fluctuating situational demands, reconfigure mental resources, shift perspective, and balance competing desires, needs, and life domains to reach long-term goals.96 Response options are on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from never true (1) to always true (7), where higher scores reflect greater psychological inflexibility, experiential avoidance, and more potential psychological distress. The internal consistency of the AAQ-II in the current study was α = .92 (excellent reliability).

The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)97 is a nine-item, self-report questionnaire that examines symptoms of depression over the previous two weeks. Response options are on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from not at all (zero) to nearly every day (3), where higher scores reflect more symptoms of depression. The internal consistency of the PHQ-9 in the current study was α = .85 (good reliability).

The Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23)98 is a 23-item, self-report questionnaire which examines symptoms of borderline personality disorder, such as identity disturbance, emotional instability, unstable interpersonal relationships, and others over the course of the previous week. Response options are on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from not at all (zero) to very much (4), where higher scores reflect more symptoms. The internal consistency of the BSL-23 in the current study was α = .95 (excellent reliability).

The Dialectical Behavior Therapy Ways of Coping Checklist (DBT-WCCL)99 is a 59-item self-report measure that assesses coping strategies in difficult situations. The measure has three subscales: DBT Skills Use, General Dysfunctional Coping, and Blaming Others. The internal consistency of these scales within this study were α = .95, .88, and .82, respectively (excellent to good reliability). Higher scores on the DBT Skills Use subscale reflect greater skills use. Higher scores on General Dysfunctional Coping and Blaming Others subscale reflect dysfunctional coping.

DBT Knowledge

Before and after each module, patients were administered knowledge quizzes to assess their attainment and understanding of DBT skills. The quizzes were developed by the CFP DBT consultation team and consisted of 10 multiple-choice or true or false questions for each module.

Behavioral Outcomes

The electronic medical record was reviewed to count the frequency of incident reports and the use of PRN medication for agitation or anxiety. In the present study, incident reports analyzed included assaults (with patient-to-patient and patient-to-staff assaults combined because of low base rates of each) and behavioral dyscontrol (verbal assaults against patient, verbal assaults against staff, oppositional behavior, elopement, or sexual behavior). Because of a low base rate at the facility, incidents of self-harm or suicidal action were not included in the present study.

Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 28.0 software. To analyze differences between self-report measures and scores on the DBT knowledge quizzes from baseline to six months of treatment, paired sample t tests were conducted. Cohen’s d was used to report effect size, where d = .2 indicates a small effect, d = .5 indicates a medium effect, and d = .8 a large effect.100 Because of administrative difficulties and staggered participant admissions into the DBT program, baseline self-report measures for an additional 173 patients and 29 six-month follow-up measures had to be excluded, resulting in reduced and varied sample sizes for each analysis. Only baseline to six-month data were reported because of power concerns.

One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to examine the differences in behavioral outcomes (PRNs and incident reports) across four quarters of DBT treatment. In each of these analyses, violations of sphericity occurred as indicated by Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity statistic (P < .05); therefore, Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were used. Partial eta squared (η2) was used to report effect size where η2 = .01 indicates a small effect, η2 = .06 indicates a medium effect, and η2 = .14 indicates a large effect.100 Bonferroni corrections were used to analyze differences in time periods for statistically significant repeated-measures ANOVAs. All significance tests used a two-tailed P value of .05.

Results

The sample, as detailed in Tables 1 and 2, consisted of adult inpatients, ranging in age from 18 to 72, who were predominantly male. There were no significant differences in outcomes between these two groups on any dependent variables, so the data were analyzed in aggregate.

View this table:
Table 1

Patient Descriptive Data (N = 650)

View this table:
Table 2

Descriptive Data on Length of Stay Measured in Months (N = 592) 

Self-Report Measures

As shown in Table 3, patients reported significantly lower scores of psychological inflexibility as measured by the AAQ-II, t(71) = 3.274, P < .001, and d = .39 from baseline to six months of DBT treatment. Patients also reported a significant decrease in their symptoms related to depression per the PHQ-9, t(73) = 2.698, P < .01, and d = .31 from baseline to six months. Additionally, there was a significant reduction in symptoms associated with BPD as measured by the BSL, t(138) = 2.447, P < .01, and d = .21 from baseline to six months.

View this table:
Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for Paired Sample T-Test Analyses

There was a significant decrease in reported use of general dysfunctional coping mechanisms as measured by the WCCL from baseline to six months, t(69) = 2.094, P < .05, and d = .25. There was also a significant decrease in blaming others as a coping mechanism from baseline to six months, t(69) = 1.936, P < .05, and d = .23. There was no significant increase in the use of DBT skills between baseline and six months of treatment.

DBT Knowledge Quizzes

As shown in Table 3, patients demonstrated a significant increase in emotion regulation knowledge from baseline to six months of DBT treatment, t(30) = –2.334, P < .05, and d = –.42 as measured by the DBT knowledge quizzes. They also demonstrated a significant increase in interpersonal effectiveness knowledge from baseline to six months of treatment, t(30) = –2.718, P < .01, and d = –.49. There were no significant differences on distress tolerance and mindfulness knowledge quizzes between baseline and six months.

Behavioral Outcomes

As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the frequency of assaultive incidents among patients across the four treatment quarters significantly decreased (F(2.798,702.416) = 5.366, P < .01, ηp2 = .021). Post hoc analyses showed a significant mean decrease of .12 (SE = .042, P < .05) in the number of assaultive incidents from Q1 to Q4. Similarly, there was a significant decrease (M = .14, SE = .047, P < .05) in the mean number of assaultive incidents from Q2 to Q4. The frequency of incidents related to behavioral dyscontrol at different time periods was nonsignificant. No post hoc analyses were conducted.

View this table:
Table 4

Descriptive Statistics for Behavioral Outcomes

View this table:
Table 5

Repeated Measures ANOVA Post Hoc Analyses

There was a significant decrease in patient use of PRN medication for agitation or anxiety across the four quarters (F(2.347,499.989) = 6.613, P < . 001, ηp2 = .030). Post hoc analyses show a significant mean decrease of 4.55 (SE = 1.349, P < .05) from PRN use during Q1 to PRN use during Q4. All other post hoc analyses were nonsignificant.

Discussion

This study is believed to be the largest published on the effectiveness of a DBT program in a forensic psychiatric inpatient setting to date.92 Given the various domains of patient functioning captured throughout program participation, this study provides a more nuanced understanding of how DBT may relate to patients’ psychiatric rehabilitation and hospital safety. The study assessed patient improvement using a variety of different measures: skill knowledge, behavioral outcomes, and self-perception of functioning.

According to Linehan’s model, skill knowledge is the first step in any behavioral change.47 Throughout the first six months of participation in the DBT program, patients gained significant knowledge of emotion regulation skills as well as interpersonal effectiveness skills. These two modules of DBT are similar in that both are change oriented, providing patients with concrete skills they can use to identify their values, reduce emotional vulnerability, manage emotional reactions, and navigate relationships. While means were higher at six-month follow-up when compared with baseline, the study did not find a significant increase in skill knowledge for the mindfulness and distress tolerance modules. Means were higher at baseline for these two modules, compared with the emotional regulation and interpersonal effectiveness modules. This may suggest that patients started with more knowledge of mindfulness and distress tolerance, and therefore had less room for improvement.

Although assaults occur infrequently, they have a large impact on patients and staff in the hospital. As life-threatening behaviors, they serve as a major barrier to patient discharge and community success.101,102 In the present study, a significant reduction in assaults occurred over the course of the first year of DBT treatment. The reduction did not happen immediately. In working with unit staff, it is not uncommon for staff to claim that DBT does not work because there is no immediate improvement in life-threatening behaviors. This finding underscores that for many life-threatening behaviors, effects may not be seen until the second cycle of DBT skills training.94

In addition to assaults, there are a variety of other behaviors that result in incident reports. Incidents of behavioral dyscontrol include a continuum of behaviors in which patients lose control in a manner that is not life threatening. Reduction in behavioral dyscontrol trended in the desired direction but did not reach statistical significance. It is not uncommon for patients who are making progress with life-threatening behaviors (or other behaviors that keep them hospitalized) to continue to engage in lower-level behavioral targets, such as dumping a lunch tray, swearing, etc.

Another behavioral indicator of DBT’s effectiveness is a significant reduction in the use of PRN medications for agitation or anxiety over the one-year DBT treatment period. In the current study, this indicator had the largest effect size of any behavioral measure assessed. There are two possible hypotheses for the decrease in PRN use. Patients may have applied DBT skills rather than relying on PRN medications when agitated. Alternatively, staff may have been more confident that patients could engage in self-management behaviors and de-escalate without the assistance of medication.27,28

In the current study, patient self-report measures were included as a measure of perceived clinical progress and were consistent with behavioral outcomes. Patients reported a significant decrease in symptoms related to depression and BPD after engaging in six months of DBT treatment, which is in line with previous studies.65,67 Patients also reported a significant decrease in psychological inflexibility, suggesting that DBT skills helped them become more effective adapting to situational demands. In a forensic setting, the ability to think flexibly may help people more effectively navigate the legal and hospital systems. It may result in increased insight into their mental illness, which is often a specific target in forensic treatment. In addition, it may help them work effectively toward their goals in the presence of difficult or unwanted thoughts, feelings, images, or memories.103

While the current study found promising and statistically significant results, there were limiting factors that must be considered. The current study was quasi-experimental rather than a randomized control trial (RCT). Therefore, there was no built-in control for alternative methods of treatment (e.g., medication management, other forms of psychotherapy, rehabilitation services, etc.). Similarly, the current study did not assess or control for previous exposure to DBT treatment, which could have resulted in greater gains for some patients. Another limitation was that the study did not compare patient functioning prior to the start of or after completion of DBT treatment.

In addition, there were limitations related to data validity that required the omission of patient data. As described above, patient self-report measures were excluded when they were not administered during consistent time periods. This happened primarily when patients were admitted to the group mid-cycle and did not receive follow-up measures within the required time frame. Further, COVID-19 interrupted programming and measure administration timelines. Additionally, variables (such as manual holds, seclusions, and restraints) were excluded because of inconsistencies in how data were operationally defined and measured over time in the hospital system. Nonetheless, we believe the findings of this study are generalizable to other forensic hospitals.

Future research on the effectiveness of DBT in forensic inpatient hospitals is warranted. Currently, no RCTs exist assessing the efficacy of DBT within a forensic setting. An RCT would provide an opportunity to compare patients receiving DBT with those receiving other forms of treatment. Linking patients in different treatments would also provide an opportunity to identify the impact of possible confounding variables, such as level of psychosis and impact of medication management. Being able to include data on manual holds, seclusions, and restraints would provide more information on the severity of patient incidents. It would also be useful to gather information on additional time periods in treatment, as well as patient functioning post-DBT treatment.

Given the lack of currently available research in these settings, this study aimed to contribute to the understanding of DBT’s effectiveness among forensic patients housed in a maximum-security hospital setting. Patients participating in DBT treatment at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry were assessed via behavioral outcomes and self-assessment measures aligned with the start of treatment and skills-training cycles. It was hypothesized that patients would experience fewer self-reported mental health symptoms and have greater perceived ability to cope with day-to-day problems, both of which were supported by the research results. While support was inconclusive for patient DBT knowledge of mindfulness and distress tolerance skills, the data indicate an overall positive effect in the amount of DBT skill knowledge gained. Finally, it was hypothesized that patients would use fewer PRN medications and have fewer incident reports as they spent more time in DBT treatment. The results of the current study partially supported this: PRN use and incidents of assault decreased significantly; however, instances of behavioral dyscontrol did not reach significance. Taken together, the research findings suggest that DBT is an effective treatment for improving outcomes and safety in an inpatient forensic setting.

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to current and past DBT Consultation Team members at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry (CFP) for the excellent treatment provided to our patients and for their assistance with implementation of the DBT program and data collection. We thank Dr. Suzanne Witterholt and Dr. Michelle Galietta for consultation on implementing DBT in forensic, antisocial, and residential settings. We give a special thanks to Dave Barry for programmatic contributions, to Michelle Stone for database development, and to the many CFP social work interns, psychology practicum students, and research student volunteers who have participated in DBT programming and data collection over the years. We also thank the patients who agreed to take part in this study and who have embraced DBT on their journey toward creating a life worth living.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.

References

  1. 1.
    ↵
    StrickSE. A demographic study of 100 admissions to a female forensic center: Incidences of multiple charges and multiple diagnoses. J Psychiatry & L. 1989; 17(3):435–48
    Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ↵
    FazelSDaneshJ. Serious mental disorder in 23000 prisoners: A systematic review of 62 surveys. Lancet. 2002; 359(9306):545–50
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.
    ↵
    Corine deRRobertLT. Prevalence and treatment of personality disorders in Dutch forensic mental health services. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007 Mar; 35(1):92–7
    Google ScholarAbstract/Full TextPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.
    ↵
    BlackDWGunterTAllenJ. Borderline personality disorder in male and female offenders newly committed to prison. Compr Psychiatry. 2007; 48(5):400–5
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.
    ↵
    SansoneRASansoneLA. Borderline personality and criminality. Psychiatry (Edgmont)). 2009; 6(10):16–20
    Google ScholarPubMed
  6. 6.
    ↵
    WarrenJISouthSC. Comparing the constructs of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in a sample of incarcerated women. Behav Sci & L. 2006; 24(1):1–20
    Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ↵
    ShepherdADoyleMSandersCShawJ. Personal recovery within forensic settings–systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative methods studies. Crim Behav & Mental Health. 2016; 26(1):59–75
    Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ↵
    MouldenHMChaimowitzGMamakMHawesJ. Understanding how sexual offenders compare across psychiatric and correctional settings: Examination of Canadian mentally ill sexual offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression. 2014; 20(2):172–81
    Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ↵
    RameshTIgoumenouAVazquez MontesMFazelS. Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence in forensic psychiatric hospitals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Psychiatry. 2018; 52:47–53
    Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ↵
    HoganNEnnisL. Assessing risk for forensic psychiatric inpatient violence: A meta-analysis. Open Access J Forensic Psychol. 2010; 2:137–47
    Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ↵
    EiseleFFlammerESteinertT. Incidents of aggression in German psychiatric hospitals: Is there an increase? PLoS One. 2021; 16(1):e0245090
    Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ↵
    BroderickCAzizianAKornbluhRWarburtonK. Prevalence of physical violence in a forensic psychiatric hospital system during 2011-2013: Patient assaults, staff assaults, and repeatedly violent patients. CNS Spectr. 2015; 20(3):319–30
    Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ↵
    GrassiLBiancosinoBMarmaiL. Violence in psychiatric units: A 7-year Italian study of persistently assaultive patients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006; 41(9):698–703
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.
    ↵
    YangBXStoneTEPetriniMAMorrisDL. Incidence, type, related factors, and effect of workplace violence on mental health nurses: A cross-sectional survey. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2018; 32(1):31–8
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.
    ↵
    ItoHEisenSVSedererLI. Factors affecting psychiatric nurses' intention to leave their current job. Psychiatr Serv. 2001; 52(2):232–4
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.
    ↵
    MorrisonEMormanGBonnerG. Reducing staff injuries and violence in a forensic psychiatric setting. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2002; 16(3):108–17
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.
    ↵
    BowersLFloodCBrennanGAllanT. A replication study of the City nurse intervention: Reducing conflict and containment on three acute psychiatric wards. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2008; 15(9):737–42
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    ↵
    BowersL. Association between staff factors and levels of conflict and containment on acute psychiatric wards in England. Psychiatr Serv. 2009; 60(2):231–9
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    ↵
    DexterEVitaccoM. Strategies for assessing and preventing inpatient violence in forensic hospitals: A call for specificity. European Psychologist. 2020; 25(2):146–54
    Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ↵
    DeanAGibbonPMcDermottB. Exposure to aggression and the impact on staff in a child and adolescent inpatient unit. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2010; 24(1):15–26
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    ↵
    WellsJBowersL. How prevalent is violence towards nurses working in general hospitals in the UK? J Adv Nurs. 2002; 39(3):230–40
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.
    ↵
    RecuperoPRPriceMGarveyKA. Restraint and seclusion in psychiatric treatment settings: Regulation, case law, and risk management. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2011 Dec; 39(4):465–76
    Google ScholarCrossRefAbstract/Full TextPubMed
  23. 23.
    ↵
    KnoxDKHollomanGH.Jr. Use and avoidance of seclusion and restraint: Consensus statement of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry Project Beta Seclusion and Restraint Workgroup. West J Emerg Med. 2012; 13(1):35–40
    Google ScholarPubMed
  24. 24.
    ↵
    DonatDC. Encouraging alternatives to seclusion, restraint, and reliance on PRN drugs in a public psychiatric hospital. Psychiatr Serv. 2005; 56(9):1105–8
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.
    ↵
    MartinKAroraVFischlerITremblayR. Descriptive analysis of pro re nata medication use at a Canadian psychiatric hospital. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2017; 26(4):402–8
    Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ↵
    VaismoradiMJordanSVizcaya-MorenoF. PRN medicines optimization and nurse education. Pharmacy (Basel). 2020; 8(4):201
    Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ↵
    HippKRepo-TiihonenEKuosmanenL. Patient participation in pro re nata medication in forensic psychiatric care: A nursing document analysis. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2021; 28(4):611–21
    Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ↵
    JimuMDoyleL. The administration of pro re nata medication by mental health nurses: A thematic analysis. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2019; 40(6):511–7
    Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ↵
    HippKRepo-TiihonenEKuosmanenL. PRN medication events in a forensic psychiatric hospital: A document analysis of the prevalence and reasons. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2020; 19(4):329–40
    Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    ↵
    VaismoradiMAmaniyanSJordanS. Patient Safety and pro re nata prescription and administration: A systematic review. Pharmacy (Basel). 2018; 6(3):95
    Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    ↵
    PatelJFrankelSTampiRR. Evidence for using PRN pharmacotherapy to treat undifferentiated acute agitation or aggression. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2019; 31(1):54–69
    Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ↵
    MolloyLFieldJBeckettPHolmesD. PRN psychotropic medication and acute mental health nursing: Reviewing the evidence. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2012; 50(8):12–5
    Google ScholarPubMed
  33. 33.
    ↵
    KaunomäkiJJokelaMKontioR. Interventions following a high violence risk assessment score: A naturalistic study on a Finnish psychiatric admission ward. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17(1):26
    Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ↵
    MaguireTDaffernMBoweSJMcKennaB. Risk assessment and subsequent nursing interventions in a forensic mental health inpatient setting: Associations and impact on aggressive behaviour. J Clin Nurs. 2018; 27(5-6):e971–e83
    Google ScholarPubMed
  35. 35.
    ↵
    HawCWolstencroftL. A study of the prescription and administration of sedative PRN medication to older adults at a secure hospital. Int Psychogeriatr. 2014; 26(6):943–51
    Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    ↵
    BarrLWynadenDHeslopK. Nurses' attitudes towards the use of PRN psychotropic medications in acute and forensic mental health settings. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018; 27(1):168–77
    Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    ↵
    OhSHWooJELeeDW. Pro re nata prescription and perception difference between doctors and nurses. Korean J Fam Med. 2014; 35(4):199–206
    Google ScholarPubMed
  38. 38.
    ↵
    VaismoradiMVizcaya MorenoFSletvoldHJordanS. PRN medicines management for psychotropic medicines in long-term care settings: A systematic review. Pharmacy (Basel). 2019; 7(4):157
    Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ↵
    FriedmanRNurenbergJRBirnbaumSSchleiferSJ. Using structured clinical feedback to encourage alternatives to use of “P.R.N.” medication in a state psychiatric hospital. J Psychiatr Pract. 2012; 18(5):381–7
    Google ScholarPubMed
  40. 40.
    ↵
    AntjeHAnkeWMonikaARTanjaM. Assessing the quality of medication documentation: Development and feasibility of the MediDocQ instrument for retrospective chart review in the hospital setting. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(11):e034609
    Google ScholarCrossRefAbstract/Full TextPubMed
  41. 41.
    ↵
    MardaniAPaalPWeckC. Practical considerations of PRN medicines management: An integrative systematic review. Front Pharmacol. 2022; 13:759998
    Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    ↵
    LeeAHDiGiuseppeR. Anger and aggression treatments: A review of meta-analyses. Curr Opin Psychol. 2018; 19:65–74
    Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    ↵
    HermanstyneKAMangurianC. Behavioral strategies to mitigate violent behavior among inpatients: A literature review. Psychiatr Serv. 2015; 66(5):557–8
    Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    ↵
    NeacsiuADTkachuckMA. Dialectical behavior therapy skills use and emotion dysregulation in personality disorders and psychopathy: A community self-report study. Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 2016; 3(1):6
    Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    ↵
    PanosPTJacksonJWHasanOPanosA. Meta-analysis and systematic review assessing the efficacy of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). Res Soc Work Pract. 2014; 24(2):213–23
    Google ScholarCrossRef
  46. 46.
    ↵
    LinehanMMComtoisKAMurrayAM. Two-year randomized controlled trial and follow-up of dialectical behavior therapy vs therapy by experts for suicidal behaviors and borderline personality disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006; 63(7):757–66
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.
    ↵
    LinehanMM.Cognitive-behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. New York: Guilford Press; 1993
    Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    ↵
    IvanoffAMarottaP. DBT in forensic settings. In SwalesMA, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019 p. 1–39
    Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    ↵
    AxelrodSRPerepletchikovaFHoltzmanKSinhaR. Emotion regulation and substance use frequency in women with substance dependence and borderline personality disorder receiving dialectical behavior therapy. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2011; 37(1):37–42
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.
    ↵
    DimeffLAKoernerK, editors. Dialectical Behavior Therapy in Clinical Practice: Applications Across Disorders and Settings. New York: Guilford Press; 2007
    Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    ↵
    DimeffLRizviSLBrownMLinehanMM. Dialectical behavior therapy for substance abuse: A pilot application to methamphetamine-dependent women with borderline personality disorder. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. 2000; 7(4):457–68
    Google ScholarCrossRef
  52. 52.
    ↵
    McCannRABallEMIvanoffA. DBT with an inpatient forensic population: The CMHIP forensic model. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. 2000; 7(4):447–56
    Google ScholarCrossRef
  53. 53.
    ↵
    GaliettaMRosenfeldB. Adapting Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) for the treatment of psychopathy. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2012; 11(4):325–35
    Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    ↵
    VitaccoMJVan RybroekGJ. Treating insanity acquittees with personality disorders: Implementing dialectical behavior therapy in a forensic hospital. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. 2006; 6(2):1–16
    Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    ↵
    GeeJReedS. The HoST programme: A pilot evaluation of modified dialectical behaviour therapy with female offenders diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling. 2013; 15(3):233–52
    Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    ↵
    MehlumL. DBT as a suicide and self-harm treatment: Assessing and treating suicidal behaviours. In SwalesMA, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019 p. 307–24
    Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    ↵
    JamilianHRMalekiradAAFarhadiM. Effectiveness of group dialectical behavior therapy (based on core distress tolerance and emotion regulation components) on expulsive anger and impulsive behaviors. Glob J Health Sci. 2014; 6(7 Spec No):116–23
    Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    ↵
    SolerJPascualJCTianaT. Dialectical Behaviour Therapy skills training compared to standard group therapy in borderline personality disorder: A 3-month randomised controlled clinical trial. Behav Res Ther. 2009; 47(5):353–8
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.
    ↵
    McQuillanANicastroRGuenotF. Intensive dialectical behavior therapy for outpatients with borderline personality disorder who are in crisis. Psychiatr Serv. 2005; 56(2):193–7
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. 60.
    ↵
    EvershedSTennantABoomerD. Practice-based outcomes of dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) targeting anger and violence, with male forensic patients: A pragmatic and non-contemporaneous comparison. Crim Behav & Mental Health. 2003; 13(3):198–213
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.
    ↵
    CiesinskiNKSorgi-WilsonKMCheungJC. The effect of dialectical behavior therapy on anger and aggressive behavior: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Behav Res Ther. 2022; 154:104122
    Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    ↵
    SheltonDSamplSKestenKL. Treatment of impulsive aggression in correctional settings. Behav Sci & L. 2009; 27(5):787–800
    Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    ↵
    SheltonDKestenKZhangWTrestmanR. Impact of a Dialectic Behavior Therapy-Corrections Modified (DBT-CM) upon behaviorally challenged incarcerated male adolescents. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. 2011; 24(2):105–13
    Google ScholarPubMed
  64. 64.
    ↵
    RosenfeldBGaliettaMIvanoffA. Dialectical behavior therapy for the treatment of stalking offenders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2007; 6(2):95–103
    Google ScholarCrossRef
  65. 65.
    ↵
    NeacsiuADEberleJWKramerR. Dialectical behavior therapy skills for transdiagnostic emotion dysregulation: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther. 2014; 59:40–51
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.
    ↵
    BradleyRGFollingstadDR. Group Therapy for incarcerated women who experienced interpersonal violence: A pilot study. J Trauma Stress. 2003; 16(4):337–40
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. 67.
    ↵
    EcclestonLSorbelloL. The RUSH program – Real Understanding of Self-Help: A suicide and self-harm prevention initiative within a prison setting. Australian Psychologist. 2002; 37(3):237–44
    Google ScholarCrossRef
  68. 68.
    ↵
    NeeCFarmanS. Female prisoners with borderline personality disorder: Some promising treatment developments. Crim Behav & Mental Health. 2005; 15(1):2–16
    Google ScholarPubMed
  69. 69.
    ↵
    NeeCFarmanS. Treatment of borderline personality disorder in prisons: Findings from the two dialectical behaviour therapy pilots in the UK. In HagenJCJensenEI, editors. Personality Disorders: New Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2008 p. 107–21
    Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    ↵
    NeeCFarmanS. Dialectical behaviour therapy as a treatment for borderline personality disorder in prisons: Three illustrative case studies. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 2007; 18(2):160–80
    Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    ↵
    BloomJMWoodwardENSusmarasTPantaloneDW. Use of dialectical behavior therapy in inpatient treatment of borderline personality disorder: A systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2012; 63(9):881–8
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.
    ↵
    KatzLYCoxBJGunasekaraSMillerAL. Feasibility of dialectical behavior therapy for suicidal adolescent inpatients. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004; 43(3):276–82
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  73. 73.
    ↵
    KleindienstNLimbergerMFSchmahlC. Do improvements after inpatient dialectial behavioral therapy persist in the long term? A naturalistic follow-up in patients with borderline personality disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2008; 196(11):847–51
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. 74.
    ↵
    LandenbergerNALipseyMW. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. J Experimental Criminology. 2005; 1(4):451–76
    Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    ↵
    McGuireJBilbyCALHatcherRM. Evaluation of structured cognitive–behavioural treatment programmes in reducing criminal recidivism. J Experimental Criminology. 2008; 4(1):21–40
    Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    ↵
    FergusonLMWormithJS. A meta-analysis of moral reconation therapy. Int’l J Offender Therapy & Comp Criminology. 2013; 57(9):1076–106
    Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    ↵
    WheelerJCovellC. Recidivism Risk Reduction Therapy (3RT). In TafrateRCMitchellD, editors. Forensic CBT: A Handbook for Clinical Practice. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2013 p. 302–26
    Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    ↵
    UsherAMStewartLA. Effectiveness of correctional programs with ethnically diverse offenders: A meta-analytic study. Int’l J Offender Therapy & Comp Criminology. 2014; 58(2):209–30
    Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    ↵
    BarnesGCHyattJMShermanLW. Even a little bit helps: An implementation and experimental evaluation of cognitive-behavioral therapy for high-risk probationers. Crim Just & Behav. 2016; 44(4):611–30
    Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    ↵
    LipseyMWLandenbergerNAWilsonSJ. Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2007; 3(1):1–21
    Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    ↵
    BontaJWormithJS.Applying the risk-need-responsivity principles to offender assessment. In CraigLADixonLGannonTA, editors. What Works in Offender Rehabilitation: An Evidence-based Approach to Assessment and Treatment Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell; 2013 p. 71–93
    Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    ↵
    AndrewsDADowdenC. The risk-need-responsivity model of assessment and human service in prevention and corrections: Crime-prevention jurisprudence. Canadian Criminal Justice Assn. 2007; 49(4): p 439–64
    Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    ↵
    LittleLB.Training in dialectical behavior therapy as a means of reducing therapist burnout. US: ProQuest Information & Learning; 2000
    Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    ↵
    MillerGDIversonKMKemmelmeierM. A preliminary examination of burnout among counselor trainees treating clients with recent suicidal ideation and borderline traits. Couns Edu & Supervision. 2011; 50(5):344–59
    Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    ↵
    PerseiusKIKÅVerAEkdahlS. Stress and burnout in psychiatric professionals when starting to use dialectical behavioural therapy in the work with young self-harming women showing borderline personality symptoms. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2007; 14(7):635–43
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.
    ↵
    BerzinsLGTrestmanRL. The development and implementation of dialectical behavior therapy in forensic settings. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2004; 3(1):93–103
    Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    ↵
    TrupinEWStewartDGBeachBBoeskyL. Effectiveness of a dialectical behaviour therapy program for incarcerated female juvenile offenders. Child Adoles Ment Health. 2002; 7(3):121–7
    Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    ↵
    IrelandCAChuSIrelandJL. Extreme stress events in a forensic hospital setting: Prevalence, impact, and protective factors in staff. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2022; 43(5):418–33
    Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    ↵
    IvanoffAMarottaPL. DBT in forensic settings. In SwalesMA, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019 p. 617–44
    Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    ↵
    TomlinsonMF. A theoretical and empirical review of dialectical behavior therapy within forensic psychiatric and correctional settings worldwide. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2018; 17(1):72–95
    Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    ↵
    Van DijkSJeffreyJKatzMR. A randomized, controlled, pilot study of dialectical behavior therapy skills in a psychoeducational group for individuals with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2013; 145(3):386–93
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.
    ↵
    LyngJSwalesMAHastingsRP. Standalone DBT group skills training versus standard (i.e. all modes) DBT for borderline personality disorder: A natural quasi-experiment in routine clinical practice. Community Ment Health J. 2020; 56(2):238–50
    Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    ↵
    LinehanMMKorslundKEHarnedMS. Dialectical behavior therapy for high suicide risk in individuals with borderline personality disorder: A randomized clinical trial and component analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015; 72(5):475–82
    Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    ↵
    LinehanMM.DBT Training Manual. New York: The Guilford Press; 2014
    Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    ↵
    BondFWHayesSCBaerRA. Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behav Ther. 2011; 42(4):676–88
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.
    ↵
    KashdanTBRottenbergJ. Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010; 30(7):865–78
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.
    ↵
    KroenkeKSpitzerR. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatric Annals. 2002; 32(9):509–15
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  98. 98.
    ↵
    BohusMKleindienstNLimbergerMF. The short version of the Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23): Development and initial data on psychometric properties. Psychopathology. 2009; 42(1):32–9
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  99. 99.
    ↵
    NeacsiuADRizviSLVitalianoPP. The dialectical behavior therapy ways of coping checklist: Development and psychometric properties. J Clin Psychol. 2010; 66(6):563–82
    Google ScholarPubMed
  100. 100.
    ↵
    CohenJ.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988
    Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    ↵
    WrightNRowleyEChopraA. From admission to discharge in mental health services: A qualitative analysis of service user involvement. Health Expect. 2016; 19(2):367–76
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.
    ↵
    RowleyEWrightNWaringJ. Protocol for an exploration of knowledge sharing for improved discharge from a mental health ward. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(9):e005176
    Google ScholarCrossRefAbstract/Full TextPubMed
  103. 103.
    ↵
    BondFWFlaxmanPEBunceD. The influence of psychological flexibility on work redesign: Mediated moderation of a work reorganization intervention. J Appl Psychol. 2008; 93(3):645–54
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
Loading
Loading
PDF
Back to top

In this Issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online

Vol. 54, Issue 1

1 Mar 2026

Table of Contents Index by author

Jump to section

Keywords

dialectical behavior therapy, DBT, forensic, inpatient, treatment outcomes