ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploring the feasibility and acceptability of DIALOG+ (a structured digital communication tool) in strengthening psychiatric care in India and Pakistan: a qualitative pilot study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the implementation feasibility and acceptability of a structured digital psychosocial communication tool (DIALOG+) to strengthen the quality of person-centric care in psychiatric settings within Pakistan and India.
designA hybrid inductive and thematic qualitative analysis using individual interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs).
settingTwo psychiatric hospitals (Karwan-e-Hayat and Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre) in Karachi, Pakistan and one psychiatric care organisation (Schizophrenia Research Foundation) in Chennai, India
participantsInterviews were conducted with 8 mental health clinicians and 40 patients who completed the DIALOG+ pilot as well as wider stakeholders, that is, 12 mental health clinical providers, 15 caregivers of people with psychosis and 13 mental health experts.
interventionA technology-assisted communication tool (DIALOG+) to structure routine meetings and inform care planning, consisting of monthly sessions over a period of 3 months. The intervention comprises a self-reported assessment of patient satisfaction and quality of life on eight holistic life domains and three treatment domains, followed by a four-step solution-focused approach to address the concerns raised in chosen domains for help. OUTCOME MEASURES: Key insights for the implementation feasibility and acceptability of DIALOG+ were assessed qualitatively using inductive thematic analysis of 22 IDIs and 8 FGDs with 54 individuals.
resultsClinicians and patients ascribed value to the efficiency and structure that DIALOG+ introduced to consultations but agreed it was challenging to adopt in busy outpatient settings. Appointment systems and selective criteria for who is offered DIALOG+ were recommended to better manage workload. Caregiver involvement in DIALOG+ delivery was strongly emphasised by family members, along with pictorial representation and relevant life domains by patients to enhance the acceptability of the DIALOG+ approach.
conclusionFindings highlight that the feasibility of implementing DIALOG+ in psychiatric care is closely tied to strategies that address clinician workload. Promoting institutional ownership in strengthening resource allocation is essential to reduce the burden on mental health professionals in order to enable them to provide more patient-centric and holistic care for people with psychosis. Further research is required to explore the appropriateness of including caregivers in DIALOG+ delivery to adapt to communal cultural attitudes in South Asia.
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.