Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37063576›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Development of the peer-supported open dialogue attitude and competence inventory for practitioners: A Delphi study.

Vladimirs Fedosejevs, Jinyu Shi, Mark Steven Hopfenbeck

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vladimirs FedosejevsDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jinyu ShiDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mark Steven HopfenbeckDepartment of Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Gjøvik, Norway.
University College London · GBNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Peer-supported Open Dialogue (POD) is a novel approach to mental health care that is currently being practiced and researched in the United Kingdom. For POD to be successfully implemented, effective training must be provided to make sure trainees are prepared to deliver the approach as intended. Therefore, a specific instrument that can assess the development and competence of POD trainees, as well as the effectiveness of POD training is crucial. Therefore, the current study aimed to establish an inventory named the Methods and Results: To generate the inventory, a four-round modified Delphi approach was used. We first identified the dimensions that are essential and specific to POD through an extensive literature review and individual interviews with practitioners ( Discussion: The PODACI provides a way to measure attitudinal and competency factors related to the treatment integrity of POD as well as the efficacy of the training courses being offered. This highly enriched instrument opens up a wide range of possibilities for POD research and application, facilitating the development of Open Dialogue services. The next step is to assess the psychometric properties of the inventory.

Indexed as

Delphi methodinterviewsinventoryopen dialogue approachpeer-supported open dialoguePODACIquestionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37063576
PMCPMC10097924
OpenAlexW4361277425

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.