Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36846479›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Implementation of open dialogue in Germany: Efforts, challenges, and obstacles.

Kolja Heumann, Mira Kuhlmann, Maike Böning, Helene Tülsner, Raffaella Pocobello, Yuriy Ignatyev, Volkmar Aderhold, Sebastian von Peter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Kolja HeumannIntegrated Working Group "Mental Health", Brandenburg Medical School, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Mira KuhlmannIntegrated Working Group "Mental Health", Brandenburg Medical School, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Maike BöningDepartment of Psychology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Helene TülsnerDepartment of Social Work, Alice Salomon University, Berlin, Germany.
Raffaella PocobelloNational Research Council of Italy, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Rome, Italy.
Yuriy IgnatyevDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Immanuel Hospital Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School, Rüdersdorf, Germany.
Volkmar AderholdDepartment of Psychiatry, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Sebastian von PeterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Immanuel Hospital Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School, Rüdersdorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The Open Dialogue (OD) approach has been implemented in different countries worldwide. OD not only depends on therapeutic principles but also requires a distinct set of structural changes that may impede its full implementation. In Germany, OD is currently practiced in different mental health care settings across the country. Yet, full implementation of OD principles is limited due to the extreme structural and financial fragmentation of the German mental health care system. With this as a background, the aim of this study was to investigate the efforts, challenges and obstacles of OD implementation in Germany. Methods: This article presents the German results from the international HOPEnDIALOGUE survey, supplemented with expert interview data. Thirty eight teams currently providing OD took part in the survey. Sixteen expert interviews were carried out with stakeholders from various care settings. Survey data were analyzed descriptively and the qualitative data were evaluated using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While having to adapt to the fragmented German health care system, OD has been mainly implemented from outpatient service providers and stand-alone services. About half of the teams implemented OD under the conditions of cross-sectoral model contracts and, thus, are considerably limited when it comes to OD implementation. Altogether, OD is not implemented to its full extent in each of the institutions surveyed. Similarly, the expert interviews revealed various challenges that mainly relate to the realization of OD's structural principles, whereas the implementation of its therapeutic benefits remains less affected. However, these challenges have managed to lead to great commitment by single teams and a certain level of implementation of OD-related concepts. Conclusion: OD in Germany can currently only be fully implemented under the cross-sectoral care model contract system that is often temporary, thus significantly hindering its continuous development. Any evaluation of OD's effectiveness in Germany thus needs to take into account the fragmented nature of the country's health care system and control for the multiple barriers that impede implementation. Reforms of the German health care system are also urgently needed to create more favorable conditions for the implementation of OD.

Indexed as

crisisExpert interviewsfidelityimplementationmental health careneed-adaptedOpen Dialogue approach

Identifiers

PMID36846479
PMCPMC9948650

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.