Feasibility, Acceptability, and Potential Efficacy of a Self-Guided Internet-Delivered Dialectical Behavior Therapy Intervention for Substance Use Disorders: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: People with alcohol and substance use disorders (SUDs) often have underlying difficulties in regulating emotions. Although dialectical behavioral therapy is effective for SUDs, it is often difficult to access. Self-guided, internet-delivered dialectical behavioral therapy (iDBT) allows for expanded availability, but few studies have rigorously evaluated it in individuals with SUDs. Objective: This study examines the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of an iDBT intervention in treatment-seeking adults with SUDs. We hypothesized that iDBT would be feasible, credible, acceptable, and engaging to people with SUDs. We also hypothesized that the immediate versus delayed iDBT group would show comparatively greater improvements and that both groups would show significant improvements over time. Methods: A 12-week, single-blinded, parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial was implemented, with assessments at baseline and at 4 (acute), 8, and 12 weeks (follow-up). A total of 72 community adults aged 18 to 64 years were randomized. The immediate group (n=38) received access to iDBT at baseline, and the delayed group (n=34) received access after 4 weeks. The intervention (Pocket Skills 2.0) was a self-guided iDBT via a website, with immediate access to all content, additional text and email reminders, and additional support meetings as requested. Our primary outcome was substance dependence, with secondary outcomes pertaining to feasibility, clinical outcomes, functional disability, and emotion dysregulation, among other measures. All outcomes were assessed using self-report questionnaires. Results: iDBT was perceived as a credible and acceptable treatment. In terms of feasibility, 94% (68/72) of the participants started iDBT, 13% (9/68) were early dropouts, 35% (24/68) used it for the recommended 8 days in the first month, and 50% (34/68) were still active 4 weeks later. On average, the participants used iDBT for 2 hours and 24 minutes across 10 separate days. In the acute period, no greater benefit was found for the immediate group on substance dependence, although we did find lower depression (b=-2.46; P=.02) and anxiety (b=-2.22; P=.02). At follow-up, there were greater benefits in terms of reduced alcohol (b=-2.00; P=.02) and nonalcoholic substance (b=-3.74; P=.01) consumption in the immediate access group. Both groups demonstrated improvements in substance dependence in the acute (b=-1.73; P<.001) and follow-up period (b=-2.09; P<.001). At follow-up, both groups reported reduced depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, emotional dysregulation, and functional disability. Conclusions: iDBT is a feasible and acceptable intervention for patients with SUDs, although methods for improving engagement are warranted. Although results did not support efficacy for the primary outcome at 4 weeks, findings support reductions in substance dependence and other mental health concerns at 12 weeks. Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, the results suggest the potential value of iDBT in the treatment of SUDs and other mental health conditions.