Implementing Open Dialogue approaches: A scoping review.

Open Dialogue approaches fall broadly into the area of systemic psychotherapeutic practices. They encourage active participation of families and social networks, and emphasize genuine collaboration within highly integrated systems of health-care service delivery. These approaches are currently being implemented in a growing number of services across the globe, and in this review, we summarize and discuss insights from papers concerned with the implementation of Open Dialogue. We used a scoping review method, which included systematic literature searches and summarizing data extraction as well as consultation with eight Open Dialogue implementation stakeholders who were invited to comment on preliminary review findings and a draft paper. We included 18 studies in the review and present their content under four thematic headings: 1. Training, 2. Family and network experiences, 3. Staff members' experiences, and 4. Structural and organizational barriers and resistance to implementation. In general, the studies did not include rich descriptions of the implementation contexts, which made it difficult to draw conclusions across studies about effective implementation practices. The discussion draws on Jamous and Peloille's (Professions and professionalisation, 1970, Cambridge University Press, 109-152) concepts of "indeterminacy" and "technicality," and we argue that the indeterminacy that dominates Open Dialogue is a challenge to implementation efforts that favor specific and standardized practices. We conclude by encouraging the development of implementation initiatives that theorize Open Dialogue practices with higher levels of technicality without corrupting the fundamental spirit of the approach.

Los métodos de diálogo abierto (Open Dialogue) pertenecen ampliamente al área de las prácticas psicoterapéuticas sistémicas. Estos fomentan la participación activa de las familias y los contactos sociales, y enfatizan la colaboración genuina dentro de los sistemas sumamente integrados de prestación de servicios de asistencia sanitaria. Estos métodos se están implementando actualmente en un número cada vez mayor de servicios en todo el mundo y, en esta revisión, resumimos y debatimos los conocimientos obtenidos de artículos relativos a la implementación del diálogo abierto. Utilizamos un método de revisión exploratoria, que incluyó búsquedas sistemáticas de publicaciones y resúmenes de extracción de datos, así como consultas con ocho partes interesadas en la implementación del diálogo abierto, a quienes se las invitó a comentar sobre los resultados preliminares de la revisión y sobre un borrador del artículo. Incluimos 18 estudios en la revisión y presentamos su contenido en cuatro títulos temáticos: 1. Capacitación, 2. La familia y las experiencias de contacto social, 3. Las experiencias de los miembros del personal, y 4. Los obstáculos estructurales y organizativos y la resistencia a la implementación. En general, los estudios no incluyeron descripciones valiosas de los contextos de implementación, lo cual dificultó la posibilidad de sacar conclusiones entre los estudios con respecto a las prácticas eficaces de implementación. En el debate se utilizan los conceptos de "indeterminación" y "tecnicidad" de Jamous y Peloille's (1970), y argumentamos que la indeterminación que domina el diálogo abierto supone un desafío para los esfuerzos de implementación que favorecen prácticas específicas y estandarizadas. Finalizamos fomentando el desarrollo de iniciativas de implementación que teorizan las prácticas de diálogo abierto con niveles más altos de tecnicidad sin alterar el espíritu fundamental del método.

Open Dialogue, need-adapted mental health care, and implementation fidelity: A discussion paper.

Open Dialogue is a need-adapted approach to mental health care that was originally developed in Finland. Like other need-adapted approaches, Open Dialogue aims to meet consumer's needs and promote collaborative person-centred dialogue to support recovery. Need-adapted mental health care is distinguished by flexibility and responsiveness. Fidelity, defined from an implementation science perspective as the delivery of distinctive interventions in a high quality and effective fashion is a key consideration in health care. However, flexibility presents challenges for evaluating fidelity, which is much easier to evaluate when manualization and reproducible processes are possible. Hence, it remains unclear whether Open Dialogue and other need-adapted mental health interventions can be meaningfully evaluated for fidelity. The aim of this paper was to critically appraise and advance the evaluation of fidelity in need-adapted mental health care, using Open Dialogue as a case study. The paper opens a discussion about how fidelity should be evaluated in flexible, complex interventions, and identifies key questions that need to be asked by practitioners working in need-adapted mental health care to ensure they deliver these interventions as intended and in an evidence-based fashion.

Peer work in Open Dialogue: A discussion paper.

Open Dialogue is a resource-oriented approach to mental health care that originated in Finland. As Open Dialogue has been adopted across diverse international healthcare settings, it has been adapted according to contextual factors. One important development in Open Dialogue has been the incorporation of paid, formal peer work. Peer work draws on the knowledge and wisdom gained through lived experience of distress and hardship to establish mutual, reciprocal, and supportive relationships with service users. As Open Dialogue is now being implemented across mental health services in Australia, stakeholders are beginning to consider the role that peer workers might have in this model of care. Open Dialogue was not, initially, conceived to include a specific role for peers, and there is little available literature, and even less empirical research, in this area. This discussion paper aims to surface some of the current debates and ideas about peer work in Open Dialogue. Examples and models of peer work in Open Dialogue are examined, and the potential benefits and challenges of adopting this approach in health services are discussed. Peer work in Open Dialogue could potentially foster democracy and disrupt clinical hierarchies, but could also move peer work from reciprocal to a less symmetrical relationship of 'giver' and 'receiver' of care. Other models of care, such as lived experience practitioners in Open Dialogue, can be conceived. However, it remains uncertain whether the hierarchical structures in healthcare and current models of funding would support any such models.