Open Dialogue approaches fall broadly into the area of systemic psychotherapeutic practices. They encourage active participation of families and social networks, and emphasize genuine collaboration within highly integrated systems of health-care service delivery. These approaches are currently being implemented in a growing number of services across the globe, and in this review, we summarize and discuss insights from papers concerned with the implementation of Open Dialogue. We used a scoping review method, which included systematic literature searches and summarizing data extraction as well as consultation with eight Open Dialogue implementation stakeholders who were invited to comment on preliminary review findings and a draft paper. We included 18 studies in the review and present their content under four thematic headings: 1. Training, 2. Family and network experiences, 3. Staff members’ experiences, and 4. Structural and organizational barriers and resistance to implementation. In general, the studies did not include rich descriptions of the implementation contexts, which made it difficult to draw conclusions across studies about effective implementation practices. The discussion draws on Jamous and Peloille’s (Professions and professionalisation, 1970, Cambridge University Press, 109-152) concepts of “indeterminacy” and “technicality,” and we argue that the indeterminacy that dominates Open Dialogue is a challenge to implementation efforts that favor specific and standardized practices. We conclude by encouraging the development of implementation initiatives that theorize Open Dialogue practices with higher levels of technicality without corrupting the fundamental spirit of the approach.

中文翻译：

---

实施开放对话方法：范围审查

开放对话方法广泛地属于系统性心理治疗实践领域。它们鼓励家庭和社交网络的积极参与，并强调在高度集成的医疗保健服务提供系统内进行真正的合作。这些方法目前正在全球越来越多的服务中实施，在本次审查中，我们总结并讨论了与开放对话实施有关的论文的见解。我们使用了范围审查方法，其中包括系统的文献搜索和总结数据提取，以及与八位受邀对初步审查结果和文件草稿发表评论的开放对话实施利益相关者进行磋商。我们在审查中纳入了 18 项研究，并在四个主题标题下展示了它们的内容：1. 培训，2. 家庭和网络经验， 3. 工作人员的经验，以及 4. 结构和组织障碍以及实施阻力。总的来说，这些研究没有包括对实施环境的丰富描述，这使得很难通过研究得出关于有效实施实践的结论。讨论借鉴了 Jamous 和 Peloille（专业和专业化，1970，剑桥大学出版社，109-152）的“不确定性”和“技术性”概念，我们认为主导开放对话的不确定性是对有利于实施工作的挑战具体和标准化的做法。