Talk:Open Dialogue

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Notability

Large number of publically funded trials. Including e.g. https://www.nelft.nhs.uk/aboutus-initiatives-opendialogue/ (citation includes list countries with interventions).
Video published by NHS organizations of trials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA-x512rqS8
UK training program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bMPFj6Wa1U
Reasonable number of academic publications (including systematic review that I have included)

Suggestive evidence

I've put the systematic review back to the top of the effectiveness section. According to wikipedia standards for medical topic, its the most trustworthy evidence. I don't know what should be put in a criticism section and a main section - this is an interesting edit because you've inverted the normal order of the sections - by putting mainstream medical evidence in a criticism section... which makes me think about what a criticism section is actually for. A bunch of policy documents talk about criticism sections being bad, because tehy split up material, this can sort of allow the sections to never "talk to on another", I think when you have criticism that strike at the *core* of a topic or the methods, so as to render the rest of the basis of knowledge questionable.

I think the anecdotal evidence for effectiveness in Finland is relevant here. I've added comments to make clear it is only suggestive (to be clear - it is suggestive enough that this program is being trialled elsewhere). It's not really good evidence for the open dialogue method though. Loads of other factors might be correlated, things like the end of the cold war, improved wealth, or early psychiatric intervention elsewhere - hence the need for randomized controlled trials. But if you can find some sources to argue for more than suggestive they might be worth including.

It would be good if we could get some better sources. The open dialogue website is potentially quite biased, and youtube videos are a pain to verify / skim.

--Talpedia (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"categories that actual exist are permitted"

"no redlinked categories; only categories that actually exist are permitted"

My intention was to create a new category because I felt that it might be useful to be able to see different mental health programs rolled out in the UK and I didn't feel I could find a category that quite fitted. I didn't want to use a category that didn't exist - I wanted to create a new category.

Mental health programmes in the UK seems like a category that exists in reality and there obviously is a process for creating categories. As to whether this category is a good idea - who knows, I don't spend that much time writing categories. I do spend a little time writing about mental health interventions in the UK... however. Talpedia (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]