ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Becoming an Open Dialogue practitioner: a qualitative study of practitioners' training experiences and transitioning to practice.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peer-supported Open Dialogue: a qualitative study of peer practitioners' experiences and non-peer practitioners' perspectives on peer involvement.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Introducing Open Dialogue as part of the WHO QualityRights Project in South Korea: experiences and opinions from an introductory workshop and 1-year pilot practice.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the context of transforming mental healthcare towards more personalised and recovery-oriented models, Open Dialogue has attracted significant international interest. Open Dialogue proposes a way of organising services and delivering care that supports an immediate response to crisis, relational continuity of care, a social network approach and the empowerment of networks through shared decision-making and a flattened hierarchy. The ODDESSI trial currently being conducted in the UK is assessing the model's clinical and cost-effectiveness. Practitioners who delivered the approach within the trial undertook a one-year Open Dialogue foundation training programme, however little is known about their training experiences. This study aimed to explore practitioners' experiences of receiving the training and transitioning to dialogic practice. Methods: Individual, joint and focus group interviews with 32 Open Dialogue practitioners were conducted. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts and transformational learning theory informed the interpretation of the findings. Results: Two themes further divided in subthemes were generated from the data: (1) experiences and impact of formal training and (2) becoming an Open Dialogue practitioner as an ongoing learning process beyond formal training: barriers and facilitators. Discussion: The one-year Open Dialogue foundation training was a transformative experience for participants due to its emphasis on self-work and its impact on a personal level. Practitioners felt adequately prepared by their training for dialogic practice, yet becoming an OD practitioner was seen as a continual process extending beyond formal training, necessitating ongoing engagement with the approach and organisational support. However, the commitment of participants to deliver optimal dialogic care was occasionally impeded by organisational constraints, resource limitations, and often having to concurrently deliver conventional care alongside Open Dialogue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.