Dialectical Behavior Therapy Research: A Living Database
The Scientific Committee of the International Association for Dialectical Behavior Therapy (IADBT) launched a survey that will allow the DBT research committee to produce a publicly available, living database of randomized controlled trials (RCT’s) on DBT -treatments, -modules and -techniques. The primary aims are to inform patients, therapists and decision makers and to improve the planning, conduct and reporting of future DBT research.
DBT Researchers, take our survey now!
What is a living database of DBT-RCTs?
Why is it important to have a living database of DBT-RCTs?
How does the database work?
Scientific Committee of the International Association for DBT
It will be an online, up-to-date and trustworthy overview of DBT-RCT’s that contains information about the study (who, where, when, citations, etc.), as well as an overview of the study population, DBT treatments, modules, techniques that were studied, the design that was used, concepts and measurements, participants flow and key demographics. In other words, it will contain all the relevant information about the trials, except for the results themselves.
We call it a living database to stress that the content is dynamic and that it requires a continuous collaboration within a network of DBT researchers. As we track new DBT -related research in medical databases (e.g., Trials, PubMed, Embase, PsycArticles, WoS, Cochrane, etc.) and keep in touch with other researchers in the field, we will add new studies. We hope that as DBT researchers become more familiar with our database, they will notify us about their new projects.
There is some overlap with conducting systematic reviews. Our goal is not to replace these reviews, but to facilitate them. Researchers who are interested to perform a review on a certain subject can first take a look at the DBT-RCT database and check which studies contain data on a specific outcome, moderator or mediator, or they could use our syntax for their own review.
All of the information that we collect is publicly available. We will provide a website with the key data, as well as an overview of all the other data in the database. Researchers who are interested in specific information can reach out and ask for what they need.
In the long-term, this repository will offer many benefits, including to
- Have a publicly available and up-to-date overview of DBT RCTs for patients, therapists and decision makers.
- Offer a platform to facilitate data sharing and aggregation.
- Improve the planning, conduct and reporting of future DBT research.
- Being a model for other researchers and fields to participate in open and collaborative science.
The immediate benefits to you of adding your DBT RCT to this repository include:
- Increasing the visibility of your work.
- Ensuring your trial is described accurately.
- Contributing to your DBT community.
- Being invited to be a co-author on a systematic review we plan to write that summarizes the DBT RCT research.
We will build the database together. Specifically, each researcher who performed a RCT on the efficacy or clinical utility of DBT- treatments, -modules, -techniques will fill out a survey about their trial. We made sure that our survey only queries relevant information and we used branching logic. This means that you will not be reading questions that are irrelevant to you – instead, each of us gets a personalized version. Depending on the features of your trial, filling out the survey would cost you somewhere in between 15 and 40 minutes.
Why do we ask researchers to answer these questions themselves? The most important reason is that all of this is the work of volunteers. The faculty of biomedical sciences of KU Leuven (Belgium) and the University Psychiatric Centre of KU Leuven will host respectively the database and the website. Our strategy is born out of necessity. At the same time, we are convinced that this kind of open science project only works if everyone contributes.
Another reason, why we think it is a good idea that researchers provide information themselves, is accuracy. It is easy to misinterpret what you read or cannot find. Checking the facts with the people who were involved seems like a wise thing to do.
- Roland Sinnaeve, PhD-candidate KU Leuven, Belgium, project lead
- Martin Bohus, Prof. MD, Universität Heidelberg, Germany
- Katherine Dixon-Gordon, Assoc. Prof., University of Massachusetts Amherst, U.S.
- Melanie Harned, Assoc. Prof., University of Washington, U.S.
- André Ivanoff, Assoc. Prof., Columbia University School of Social Work, U.S.
- Sara Landes, Assoc. Prof., University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, U.S.
- Shelley McMain, Assoc. Prof. University of Toronto, Canada
- Lars Mehlum, Prof. MD, University of Oslo, Norway
- Joaquim Soler, Assoc. Prof., Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain