Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34987444›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Trialogue Meetings: Engaging Citizens and Fostering Communities of Wellbeing Through Collective Dialogue.

Liam Mac Gabhann, Simon Dunne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Co-Creative Digital Platforms for Mental Healthcare].HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik · 2022
    Article
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

2 authors.

Liam Mac GabhannSchool of Nursing, Psychotherapy and Community Health, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Simon DunneSchool of Psychology, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community-based participatory approaches are widely recognized as valuable methods for improving mental health and well-being by enabling a greater sense of liberty among participants, through the development of equitable policies and practices, which accommodate a range of diverse perspectives. One such approach, "Trialogue Meetings," has been found to encourage disclosure and dialogue surrounding mental health, facilitate the growth and development of communities in relation to people's experience of mental health difficulties, service provider and community response. Emerging in the 1990s because of perceived and felt inequitable relations between people with lived experience of mental health difficulties, family members of people with mental health difficulties and professionals providing mental health service provision. This approach has been shown to successfully reduce stigma and discrimination and improve relations between stakeholders in community and mental health care settings. Trialogue Meetings incorporate Open Dialogue methods to allow multiple stakeholder groups to participate in conversations around a given topic and enable the creation of a common language and mutual understanding. Trialogue Meetings have added benefits of allowing individuals to express themselves better, gain a sense of relationality and community with others and address predetermined power hierarchies with prescribed responses to people's experiences. In this perspective, we present an outline for Trialogue Meetings as a medium for enhancing wellbeing, providing a transformative empowering process for deliberate discursive practice and engaging citizens through sustained collective dialogue.

Indexed as

citizenshipopen dialogueparticipationTrialogue Meetingstrialogueswellbeing

Identifiers

PMID34987444
PMCPMC8720879

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.