Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34958932›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2022

Open Dialogue compared to treatment as usual for adults experiencing a mental health crisis: Protocol for the ODDESSI multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial.

Stephen Pilling, Katherine Clarke, Georgie Parker, Kirsty James, Sabine Landau, Timothy Weaver, Russell Razzaque, Thomas Craig

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stephen PillingCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Department of Clinical, Health and Educational Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Pl, London WC1E 7HB, UK. Electronic address: s.pilling@ucl.ac.uk.
Katherine ClarkeCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Department of Clinical, Health and Educational Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Pl, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Georgie ParkerCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Department of Clinical, Health and Educational Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Pl, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Kirsty JamesInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AB, UK.
Sabine LandauInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AB, UK.
Timothy WeaverMiddlesex University, Department of Mental Health & Social Work, Room TG70, Ground Floor Town Hall, School of Health and Education, The Burroughs, London NW4 4BT, UK.
Russell RazzaqueNorth East London Foundation Trust, Research and Development Department, 1st Floor Maggie Lilley Suite, Goodmayes Hospital, Barley Lane Ilford, IG3 8XJ London, UK.
Thomas CraigInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background 'Open Dialogue' is a social network model of crisis and continuing mental healthcare which involves elements of service delivery such as immediate response and a style of therapeutic meeting called network meetings. Although there are indications from non-randomised studies that it may help people in their recovery from severe mental health crises and improve long-term outcomes, this has yet to be tested in a randomised controlled trial. Methods This paper outlines the protocol for a multi-site cluster-randomised control trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Open Dialogue compared to treatment as usual (TAU) for individuals presenting in crisis to six mental health services in England. The primary outcome is time to relapse, with secondary outcomes including measures of recovery and service use. Participants will be followed-up for two years, with data collected from electronic medical records and researcher-led interviews. The analysis will compare outcomes between treatment groups as well as investigating potential mediators of effect: shared decision-making and social network quality and size. Carers of a subsample of participants will be asked about their experiences of shared decision-making, carer burden, and satisfaction. Discussion This trial will provide evidence of whether Open Dialogue services implemented in the English mental health system is an effective alternative to current care and may have important implications for the organization of community mental health services. Trial registration: retrospectively registered (108 participants recruited of 570 target) on 20/12/2019, ISRCTN52653325.

Indexed as

Mental HealthMental Health ServicesAdultCaregiversCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCommunity mental health careCrisis careOpen dialogueRelapseSevere mental disordersSocial network

Identifiers

PMID34958932
PMCPMC8844585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.