ArticleBJPsych open2025
Peer-supported Open Dialogue: a qualitative study of peer practitioners' experiences and non-peer practitioners' perspectives on peer involvement.
Article in BJPsych 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.
- An Evidence-Based and Lived Experience Approach to Improving Therapeutic Environments for Neurodivergent Clients.Health services insights · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer-supported Open Dialogue (POD) integrates peer practitioners within mental health teams, fostering a collaborative, person-centred and social network approach to care. Although peer practitioners are increasingly involved in Open Dialogue, the role of peer practitioners within such teams remains underexplored.
aimsThis study aimed to explore (a) the experiences of peer practitioners working within Open Dialogue teams in the Open Dialogue: Development and Evaluation of a Social Intervention for Severe Mental Illness trial, and (b) the perspectives of non-peer Open Dialogue practitioners regarding peer involvement. Our further objectives were to understand the nature, degree and perceived impact of peer practitioner involvement in Open Dialogue.
methodA qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and joint interviews with peer practitioners (
resultsThree themes were developed. The first focuses on the perceived influence of peer practitioners on Open Dialogue network meetings; the second explores the opportunities and challenges of working as a peer practitioner in Open Dialogue, while the third details the perceived impact of peer practitioners on team and organisational culture.
conclusionsOpen Dialogue's emphasis on a flattened hierarchy facilitates the integration of peer practitioners, enabling them to contribute meaningfully to network meetings and team culture. Despite the overall positive experiences, peers still faced common challenges faced by those in other services, such as low pay and occasional instances of a compromised, flattened hierarchy.
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.