An essential bibliography to illustrate the main principles, methods and outcomes of the Open Dialogue approach.
– Olson M, Seikkula J, Ziedonis D (2014).
The key elements of dialogic practice in open dialogue: fidelity criteria.
A discussion of the twelve, key elements of fidelity to Dialogic Practice that characterize the therapeutic, interactive style of Open Dialogue in face-to-face encounters within the treatment meeting.
– Seikkula J (1994).
When the boundary opens: Family and hospital in co-evolution. Journal of Family Therapy. 16: 401-414.
A report of the first experiences with the Open Dialogue approach in Western Lapland.
– Seikkula J, Aaltonen J, Alakare B, Haarakangas K, Sutela M & Keränen J (1995).
Treating psychosis by means of open dialogue. In S. Friedman (Ed.) The Reflecting team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
A discussion on the early experiences of the new system of care and the decision to name it “Open Dialogue Approach”.
– Seikkula J, Alakare B, Aaltonen J, Holma J, Rasinkangas A & Lehtinen V (2003).
Open Dialogue approach: Treatment principles and preliminary results of a two-year follow-up on first episode schizophrenia. Ethical Human Sciences and Services. 5(3), 163-182.
The outcomes of users treated with the Open Dialogue approach in its initial phases, compared to users diagnosed with schizophrenia who received conventional treatment.
– Seikkula J, Aaltonen J, Alakare B, Haarakangas K, Keränen J, Lehtinen K (2006).
Five-year experience of first-episode nonaffective psychosis in open-dialogue approach: treatment principles, follow-up outcomes, and two case studies. Psychother. Res. 16, 214-228.
This paper shows that the good outcomes of Open Dialogue persist at a five-year follow-up, and illustrates in detail two case studies.
– Seikkula J, Alakare B, Aaltonen J (2011).
The comprehensive Open-Dialogue Approach in Western Lapland: II. Long-term stability of acute psychosis outcomes in advanced community care. Psychosis 3 (3), 192-204.
This study shows that the good outcomes of Open Dialogue persist both at a two-year follow-up and 10 years later.
– Bergström T, Seikkula J, Alakare B, Mäki P, Köngäs-Saviaro P, Taskila JJ et al. (2018).
The family-oriented open dialogue approach in the treatment of first-episode psychosis: nineteen-year outcomes. Psychiatry Res. 270:168-75.
A register-based cohort study that evaluates the long-term results of Open Dialogue in Finland over approximately 19 years. It shows that many positive outcomes are sustained over a long time period.
– Seikkula J, Alakare B, Aaltonen J (2001).
Open dialogue in psychosis II: a comparison of good and poor outcome cases. J. Construct. Psychol. 14, 267-284.
This paper examines 78 consecutive psychotic cases treated with the Open Dialogue approach, investigates the differences between cases with a good and a poor outcome, and signals some possible predictors of a poor outcome.
– Seikkula J (2002).
Open dialogues with good and poor outcome in psychotic crisis. Example on family violence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 28, 263 -274.
An analysis on the dialogical differences between cases with good and poor outcomes. In the good outcome cases, unlike in the poor outcome cases, since the first meeting the clients were heard and the team responded to their words in a dialogical way.
– Von Peter S, Aderhold V, Cubellis L, Bergström T, Stastny P, Seikkula J and Puras D (2019).
Open Dialogue as a Human Rights-Aligned Approach. Front. Psychiatry 10:387.
This conceptual article discusses to what extent Open Dialogue both aligns with human rights and may strengthen compliance with human rights perspectives in global mental health care. It concludes that Open Dialogue can be understood as a human rights-aligned approach.