FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2947049069> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2947049069 endingPage "531" @default.
• W2947049069 startingPage "531" @default.
• W2947049069 abstract "Back to table of contents Previous article Next article LettersFull AccessOpen Dialogue: The Evidence and Further Research: In ReplyAbigail M. Freeman, B.Sc., M.Sc., Rachel H. Tribe, B.Sc., M.Sc., Joshua C. H. Stott, D.Clin.Psy., Stephen Pilling, M.Sc., Ph.D.Abigail M. FreemanSearch for more papers by this author, B.Sc., M.Sc., Rachel H. TribeSearch for more papers by this author, B.Sc., M.Sc., Joshua C. H. StottSearch for more papers by this author, D.Clin.Psy., Stephen PillingSearch for more papers by this author, M.Sc., Ph.D.Published Online:1 Jun 2019https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.70603AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail IN REPLY: We are pleased to hear that our review (1) has sparked much interest in and debate about the evidence for Open Dialogue (OD). The primary objective of our review was to collect and synthesize the existing qualitative and quantitative research. We reviewed 23 studies, which included observational nonrandomized designs and qualitative studies. There was no evidence from randomized controlled trials, and consequently we concluded that the current evidence for OD is limited. However, we do not believe that this conclusion negates the possibility that OD is effective.In evaluating the strength of evidence, assessment of the quality of available studies is crucial in order to inform any conclusions drawn from the data generated. The concept of “quality” refers to whether the design, conduct, analysis, and presentation of a study were appropriate to answer its research question (2). We are enthusiastic about the potential impact and appeal of OD, yet the design and methodology of the currently available studies require researchers to be cautious when drawing conclusions given the type of data available.We were interested to see the latest analysis by Seikkula and his colleagues (3), which compared the original OD cohorts (1992–1993, 1994–1997, 2003–2005) with a historical Finnish control group who received treatment (1995–1996) outside of the region of Western Lapland. As expected, the long-term outcomes reported are consistent with the previous analyses of the same three OD cohorts, which are described in our review (1). However, because of the observational nature of this study, randomized trials are needed to provide more information about the efficacy of the OD approach (3). Further evidence from new patients, beyond this sample (N=108), are necessary to develop a more robust evidence base for OD. For example, trials should include patients who have received OD in Western Lapland since 2005 and patients in other regions where OD has been implemented. Randomized trials where outcomes from patients randomly assigned to receive OD are compared with an appropriate control condition would increase the strength of evidence (4).Although we maintain that current evidence for OD is limited, we also believe that OD may have significant potential. We are actively engaged with research that aims to understand the effectiveness of OD, including ODDESSI (led by S.P.), a large-scale research program funded by the National Institutes of Health Research in the United Kingdom. A recently funded international research program to develop robust outcome measures for OD, HOPEnDialogue (led by Raffaella Pocobello, Ph.D., and of which S.P. also is an investigator), may further our understanding of the feasibility and effectiveness of OD.We believe that identifying areas where evidence could be improved (such as OD) and actively researching these to strengthen the evidence base are essential for scientific progress and for improving the quality of psychiatric services.References1 Freeman AM, Tribe RH, Stott JCH, et al.: Open Dialogue: a review of the evidence. Psychiatr Serv 2019; 70:46–59Link, Google Scholar2 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al.: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d5928Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3 Bergström T, Seikkula J, Alakare B, et al.: The family-oriented Open Dialogue approach in the treatment of first-episode psychosis: nineteen-year outcomes. Psychiatry Res 2018; 270:168–175Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, et al.: When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ 2007; 334:349–351Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar FiguresReferencesCited byDetailsCited byNone Volume 70Issue 6 June 01, 2019Pages 531-531 Metrics PDF download History Published online 1 June 2019 Published in print 1 June 2019" @default.
• W2947049069 created "2019-06-07" @default.
• W2947049069 creator A5025351706 @default.
• W2947049069 creator A5049702763 @default.
• W2947049069 creator A5057107045 @default.
• W2947049069 creator A5087027560 @default.
• W2947049069 date "2019-06-01" @default.
• W2947049069 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2947049069 title "Open Dialogue: The Evidence and Further Research: In Reply" @default.
• W2947049069 doi "https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.70603" @default.
• W2947049069 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31154966" @default.
• W2947049069 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2947049069 type Work @default.
• W2947049069 sameAs 2947049069 @default.
• W2947049069 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2947049069 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2947049069 hasAuthorship W2947049069A5025351706 @default.
• W2947049069 hasAuthorship W2947049069A5049702763 @default.
• W2947049069 hasAuthorship W2947049069A5057107045 @default.
• W2947049069 hasAuthorship W2947049069A5087027560 @default.
• W2947049069 hasBestOaLocation W29470490691 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C23131810 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C2777601897 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C2779121571 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C126838900 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C142724271 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C144024400 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C15744967 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C161191863 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C19165224 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C23131810 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C2777601897 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C2779121571 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C41008148 @default.
• W2947049069 hasConceptScore W2947049069C71924100 @default.
• W2947049069 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2947049069 hasLocation W29470490691 @default.
• W2947049069 hasLocation W29470490692 @default.
• W2947049069 hasOpenAccess W2947049069 @default.
• W2947049069 hasPrimaryLocation W29470490691 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W1553843880 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W1567702363 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W1989105321 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W2245265222 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W2484364827 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W2800235513 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W2911434249 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W4233718258 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W4236278082 @default.
• W2947049069 hasRelatedWork W53499019 @default.
• W2947049069 hasVolume "70" @default.
• W2947049069 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2947049069 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2947049069 magId "2947049069" @default.
• W2947049069 workType "article" @default.