Premium
Implementing Open Dialogue approaches: A scoping review
Author(s) -
Buus Niels,
Ong Ben,
Einboden Rochelle,
Len Elizabeth,
MikesLiu Kristof,
Mayers Steven,
McCloughen Andrea
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
family process
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.011
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1545-5300
pISSN - 0014-7370
DOI - 10.1111/famp.12695
Subject(s) - indeterminacy (philosophy) , best practice , thematic analysis , sociology , public relations , globe , knowledge management , political science , engineering ethics , psychology , epistemology , computer science , social science , qualitative research , engineering , law , philosophy , neuroscience
Open Dialogue approaches fall broadly into the area of systemic psychotherapeutic practices. They encourage active participation of families and social networks, and emphasize genuine collaboration within highly integrated systems of health‐care service delivery. These approaches are currently being implemented in a growing number of services across the globe, and in this review, we summarize and discuss insights from papers concerned with the implementation of Open Dialogue. We used a scoping review method, which included systematic literature searches and summarizing data extraction as well as consultation with eight Open Dialogue implementation stakeholders who were invited to comment on preliminary review findings and a draft paper. We included 18 studies in the review and present their content under four thematic headings: 1. Training, 2. Family and network experiences, 3. Staff members’ experiences, and 4. Structural and organizational barriers and resistance to implementation. In general, the studies did not include rich descriptions of the implementation contexts, which made it difficult to draw conclusions across studies about effective implementation practices. The discussion draws on Jamous and Peloille’s (Professions and professionalisation, 1970, Cambridge University Press, 109‐152) concepts of “indeterminacy” and “technicality,” and we argue that the indeterminacy that dominates Open Dialogue is a challenge to implementation efforts that favor specific and standardized practices. We conclude by encouraging the development of implementation initiatives that theorize Open Dialogue practices with higher levels of technicality without corrupting the fundamental spirit of the approach.