Not ‘Just a Talking Head’: Experiences of Australian Public Mental Health Clinicians Implementing a Dialogical Family Therapy Approach for Young People with Severe Mental Health Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence for efficacy of family‐based approaches for psychological problems is extensive, although model‐specific effects have not been established. However, implementation of family therapy approaches in tertiary mental health settings has been challenging due to factors such as negative staff attitudes and difficulties engaging families. Open Dialogue is an emerging network‐based therapy that has a focus on genuine collaboration, flexibility, authenticity, and openness. This study describes the experiences and perspectives of clinicians, service users and families, following training in Open Dialogue, within a child and adolescent mental health service, and an adolescent inpatient unit in public mental health services. A total of 16 participants (11 clinicians and five service users and family members) took part in semi‐structured interviews regarding their experiences with Open Dialogue. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to analyse interview transcripts. Four major themes were identified from interviews with clinicians: valuing responses from families, learning from families and privileging their expertise, hesitation about doing family therapy, and engaging with authenticity and flexibility. Three themes emerged from family interviews: hesitation about doing family therapy, valuing collaboration and openness, and opening space for more talk. These themes are relevant to challenges of family therapy in public mental health settings and future directions for implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".