Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Radically open dialectical behaviour therapy was not significantly better than usual care in reducing depression after 12 months, and had an incremental cost per QALY of about £220,000.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Thomas R Lynch, Roelie J Hempel, Ben Whalley, Sarah Byford, Rampaul Chamba, Paul Clarke, Susan Clarke, David Kingdon, Heather O’Mahen, Bob Remington, Sophie C Rushbrook, James Shearer, Maggie Stanton, Michaela Swales, Alan Watkins & Ian T Russell.

Thomas R Lynch 1,*, Roelie J Hempel 1, Ben Whalley 2, Sarah Byford 3, Rampaul Chamba 4, Paul Clarke 5, Susan Clarke 6, David Kingdon 7, Heather O’Mahen 8, Bob Remington 1, Sophie C Rushbrook 6, James Shearer 3, Maggie Stanton 9, Michaela Swales 10, Alan Watkins 11, Ian T Russell 11

1 Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
2 School of Psychology/Cognition Institute, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK
3 King’s Health Economics, King’s College London, London, UK
4 Member of Trial Management Committee responsible for Public and Patient Involvement, Bilston, UK
5 Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
6 Intensive Psychological Therapies Service, Dorset HealthCare University NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK
7 School of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
8 Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
9 Psychological Services, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK
10 School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
11 Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.


Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions