TY - JOUR
T1 - The association between Open Dialogue to young Danes in acute psychiatric crisis and their use of health care and social services
T2 - A retrospective register-based cohort study
AU - Buus, Niels
AU - Kragh Jacobsen, Elise
AU - Bojesen, Anders Bo
AU - Bikic, Aida
AU - Müller-Nielsen, Klaus
AU - Aagaard, Jørgen
AU - Erlangsen, Annette
N1 - Funding Information:
The study was partially funded by Psychiatric Research Foundation in Region of Southern Denmark . The Grant Family Charitable Trust and the Michael Crouch Family Trust support the St. Vincent’s Chair of Mental Health Nursing and the Centre for Family-Based Mental Health Care, St. Vincent’s Hospitals Sydney. The abovementioned organisations had no influence on the research. We thank Professor Jan Scott, Newcastle University, for valuable comments on an earlier draft of the paper.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/3
Y1 - 2019/3
N2 - Background: Although most mental disorders have their onset in early life, the mental health needs of young people are often not addressed adequately. Open Dialogue is a need-adapted approach that mobilizes psychosocial resources in a crisis struck person's social network. Open Dialogue is organised as a series of network meetings and seeks to promote collaborative integrated care, and a non-directive psychotherapeutic stance. Its effectiveness for young people has not previously been assessed. Objectives: The aim of the study was to examine whether a Danish Open Dialogue approach directed at young people, who sought help from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, reduced their utilisation of psychiatric and other health services, compared to peers receiving usual psychiatric treatment. Design: A retrospective register-based cohort study. Methods: Using clinical and national register data, a cohort of patients aged 14–19 years (n = 503) enrolled from one region during 2000 to 2015 were compared to a matched comparison group from two other regions using propensity scores. Utilisation of psychiatric health services, GP services, and social markers were assessed after 1, 2, 5 and 10 year of follow-up using logistic and Poisson regression models. Results: Patients receiving Open Dialogue intervention had more psychiatric outpatient treatments at one year of follow-up (RR = 1.2, CI: 1.1–1.4) than the comparison group, but not at subsequent follow-ups. Recipients of the intervention had fewer emergency psychiatric treatments (1 year follow-up: RR = 0.2, CI: 0.1-0.5; 10 years follow-up: RR = 0.5, CI: 0.3-0.8) and less use of general practitioner services (1 year follow-up: RR = 0.90, CI: 0.82-0.99; 10 years follow-up: RR = 0.85, CI: 0.78-0.92). There was no significant reduction in the number of psychiatric hospitalisation contacts or treatment days. Conclusions: Open Dialogue was significantly associated with some reduced risks of utilising health care services. These mixed results should be tested in a randomized design.
AB - Background: Although most mental disorders have their onset in early life, the mental health needs of young people are often not addressed adequately. Open Dialogue is a need-adapted approach that mobilizes psychosocial resources in a crisis struck person's social network. Open Dialogue is organised as a series of network meetings and seeks to promote collaborative integrated care, and a non-directive psychotherapeutic stance. Its effectiveness for young people has not previously been assessed. Objectives: The aim of the study was to examine whether a Danish Open Dialogue approach directed at young people, who sought help from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, reduced their utilisation of psychiatric and other health services, compared to peers receiving usual psychiatric treatment. Design: A retrospective register-based cohort study. Methods: Using clinical and national register data, a cohort of patients aged 14–19 years (n = 503) enrolled from one region during 2000 to 2015 were compared to a matched comparison group from two other regions using propensity scores. Utilisation of psychiatric health services, GP services, and social markers were assessed after 1, 2, 5 and 10 year of follow-up using logistic and Poisson regression models. Results: Patients receiving Open Dialogue intervention had more psychiatric outpatient treatments at one year of follow-up (RR = 1.2, CI: 1.1–1.4) than the comparison group, but not at subsequent follow-ups. Recipients of the intervention had fewer emergency psychiatric treatments (1 year follow-up: RR = 0.2, CI: 0.1-0.5; 10 years follow-up: RR = 0.5, CI: 0.3-0.8) and less use of general practitioner services (1 year follow-up: RR = 0.90, CI: 0.82-0.99; 10 years follow-up: RR = 0.85, CI: 0.78-0.92). There was no significant reduction in the number of psychiatric hospitalisation contacts or treatment days. Conclusions: Open Dialogue was significantly associated with some reduced risks of utilising health care services. These mixed results should be tested in a randomized design.
KW - Delivery of health care, integrated
KW - Mental health services
KW - Psychosocial support systems
KW - Psychotherapy
KW - Retrospective studies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060310284&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.12.015
DO - 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.12.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 30682632
AN - SCOPUS:85060310284
SN - 0020-7489
VL - 91
SP - 119
EP - 127
JO - International Journal of Nursing Studies
JF - International Journal of Nursing Studies
ER -