open dialogue: clients voices to be heard
DESCRIPTION
OPEN DIALOGUE: Clients voices to be heard. Jaakko Seikkula Seikkula, J. & Arnkil, TE (2006) Dialogical meetings in social networks. London: Karnac Books. DIALOGUE “ For the word (and, consequently, for a human being) there is nothing more terrible than a lack of response ” - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
OPEN DIALOGUE: Clients voices to be heard
Jaakko Seikkula
Seikkula, J. & Arnkil, TE (2006) Dialogical meetings in social networks. London: Karnac Books
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
DIALOGUE
“For the word (and, consequently, for a human being) there is nothing more terrible than a lack of response”
“Being heard as such is already a dialogic relation” (Bakhtin, 1975)
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
The present moment
To be present in the ”once occurring participation in being” (M.Bakhtin)
”Neither – nor” (T. Andersen) From explicit to implicit knowing (D. Stern, 2004) From narratives to telling Intersubjectivity: ”I see myself in your eyes” (M.
Bakhtin)
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
“ The conversational style (….) simply follows the conversation, while the narrative and solution-focused styles often attempt to lead it. The conversational style strives to remain dialogical, while the solution-focused and narrative styles may become monological (e.g., when therapists attempt to "story" clients' lives according to a planned agenda).”
Lowe, R. (2005). Structured methods and striking moments: using question sequences in "living" ways.Family Process, 44, 65-75.
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Polyphonic self
When the mind is thinking, it is simply talking to itself, asking questions and answering them, and saying yes or no. When it reaches a decision – which may come slowly or in sudden rush – when doubt is over and the two voices affirm the same thing, then we call that ’its judgement´.– Plato: Theatetus 189e-190a.
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
“Voices are the speaking personality, the speaking consciousness”. (Bakhtin, 1984; Wertsch, 1990)
“Voices are traces and they are activated by new events that are similar or related to the original event”. (Stiles et al., 2004)
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
T2
T1
MikkoSinikka
Seppo
Liisa
”Horizontal polyphony” = social relations
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
T2
T1
MikkoSinikka
Seppo
Liisa
female
Father death
spouse mother
mother
sonmale
memory of death
”Vertical polyphony” = inner voices
fathertechnician
sisterdaughter
Family therapistfather
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Social networks
Private social relationsCollaboration across professional
boundaries ”Horizontal polyphony”
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Origins of open dialogue
Initiated in Finnish Western Lapland since early 1980’s
Need-Adapted approach – Yrjö Alanen Integrating systemic family therapy and
psychodynamic psychotherapy Treatment meeting 1984 Systematic analysis of the approach since 1988
–”social action research” Systematic family therapy training for the entire
staff – since 1989
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
MAIN ELEMENTS OF OPEN DIALOGUE MEETING
Everyone participates from the outset in the meeting
All things associated with analyzing the problems, planning the treatment and decision making are discussed openly and decided while everyone present
Neither themes nor form of dialogue are planned in advance
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
MAIN ELEMENTS OF OPEN DIALOGUE MEETING
The primary aim in the meetings is not an intervention changing the family or the patient
The aim is to build up a new joint language for those experiences, which do not yet have words
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
MAIN ELEMENTS OF DIALOGUE MEETING/3
Meeting can be conducted by one therapist or the entire team can participate in interviewing
Task for the facilitator(s) is to open the meeting with open questions; to guarantee voices becoming heard; to build up a place for reflective comments among the professionals; to conclude the meeting with definition of what have we done.
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
MAIN ELEMENTS OF A DIALOGICAL MEETING/4
Professionals discuss openly of their own observations while the network is present
There is no specific reflective team, but the reflective conversation is taking place by changing positions from interviewing to having a dialogue
In the conversation the team tries to follow the words and language used by the network members instead of finding explanations behind the obvious behavior
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
MAIN PRINCIPLES FOR ORGANIZING OPEN DIALOGUES IN SOCIAL NETWORKS
IMMEDIATE HELP SOCIAL NETWORK PERSPECTIVE FLEXIBILITY AND MOBILITY RESPONSIBILITY PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTINUITY TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY DIALOGICITY
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
IMMEDIATE HELP
First meeting in 24 hours Crisis service for 24 hours All participate from the outset Psychotic stories are discussed in open dialogue with
everyone present The patient reaches something of the ”not-yet-said”
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
SOCIAL NETWORK PERSPECTIVE
Those who define the problem should be included into the treatment process
A joint discussion and decision on who knows about the problem, who could help and who should be invited into the treatment meeting
Family, relatives, friends, fellow workers and other authorities
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
RESBONSIBILITY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTINUITY
The one who is first contacted is responsible for arranging the first meeting
The team takes charge of the whole process regardless of the place of the treatment
The meetings as often as needed The meetings for as long period as needed The same team both in the hospital and in the outpatient
setting Not to refer to another place
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY
To build up a scene for a safe enough process To promote the psychological resources of the
patient and those nearest him/her To avoid premature decisions and treatment plans To define open
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
DIALOGICITY
The emphasize in generating dialogue - not primarily in promoting change in the patient or in the family
New words and joint language for the experiences, which do not yet have words or language
“Listen to what the people say not to what they mean”
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
“For each theme under discussion, every individual responds to a multiplicity of voices, internally and in relation to others in the room. All these voices are in dialogue with each other. Dialogue is a mutual act, and focusing on dialogue as a form of psychotherapy changes the position of the therapists, who acts no longer as interventionists, but as participants in a mutual process of uttering and responding”.
Seikkula, J. & Trimble, D. (2005) Healing Elements of Therapeutic Conversation: Dialogue as an Embodiment of Love. Family Process 4/2005.
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
5 years follow-up of Open Dialogue in Acute psychosisSeikkula et al. Psychotherapy Research, March 2006: 16(2),214-228)
01.04.1992 – 31.03.1997 in Western Lapland, 72 000 inhabitants Starting as a part of a Finnish National Integrated Treatment of Acute
Psychosis –project of Need Adapted treatment Naturalistic study – not a randomized trial Aim 1: To increase treatment outside hospital in home settings Aim 2: To increase knowledge of the place of medication – not to start
neuroleptic drugs in the beginning of treatment but to focus on an active psychosocial treatment
N = 90 at the outset; n=80 at 2 year; n= 76 at 5 years Follow-up interviews as learning forums
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Table 1. Charasteristics of the patients at the baseline (N=80)
Male Female Total ---------------------------------------------
Age (mean) 26.9 25.9 26.5
Employment statusStudying 12 12 24 30 %Working 27 11 38 48 %Unemployed 7 2 9 11 %Passive 4 5 9 11 %
Diagnosis (DSM-III-R) Brief psychotic episodes 12 7 19 23 %Nonspecifiedpsychosis 8 6 15 18 %Schizophreniformpsychosis 9 8 17 21 %Schizophrenia 20 10 30 38 %
OPEN DIALOGUE IN ACUTE PSYCHOSIS
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
OPEN DIALOGUE IN ACUTE PSYCHOSIS
Figure 1. Means of hospital days at 2 and 5 years follow-ups
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0-2years
1.4.1992 -31.3.19931.1.94-31.3.97ODAP
2-5 years
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
OPEN DIALOGUE IN ACUTE PSYCHOSIS
Table 2. Psychotic symptoms at 5 year follow-up compared to neuroleptic medication during the first 2 years/ %
Rating of symptomsNeuroleptics 0 1 2 3 4 Total
-------------------------------------Not used 85 9 3 3 0 100Used or cont. 58 17 8 17 0 100
-------------------------------------Total 80 10 4 6 0 100Chi-square 5.93; df=3; p=.145 (NS)
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
OPEN DIALOGUE IN ACUTE PSYCHOSIS
Table 3. Relapses compared to use of neuroleptics during the early phase of the treatment
Neuroleptics Not-used Used Total/% Chi-sq. P--------------------------------------------------------
Relapses 0-2 years 0 56 7 63/ 82 8.97;3 .030 At least 1 9 5 14/ 18
Relapses 2-5 years 0 47 9 56/ 73 2.96;2 ns
At least 1 16 3 19 27 ----------------------------------------------------------Total number of relapsed cases 28%
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
COMPARISON OF 5-YEARS FOLLOW-UPS IN WESTERN LAPLAND AND STOCKHOLM
ODAP Western Lapland Stockholm* 1992-1997 1991-1992
N = 72 N=71Diagnosis:Schizophrenia 59 % 54 %Other non-affectivepsychosis 41 % 46 %Mean age years
female 26.5 30 male 27.5 29
Hospitalizationdays/mean 31 110Neuroleptic used 33 % 93 % - ongoing 17 % 75 %GAF at f-u 66 55Disability allowanceor sick leave 19 % 62 %
*Svedberg, B., Mesterton, A. & Cullberg, J. (2001). First-episode non-affective psychosis in a total urban population: a 5-year follow-up. Social Psychiatry, 36:332-337.
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
TABLE 5 Psychological status of patients at the onset of the crisis in the Poor and Good outcome groups. Poor Good Total
outcome outcome
Variable N=17 % N=61 % N=78 %
Duration of psychotic symptoms/months before contact - mean 7.6 2.5 3.6 - sd 7.6 4.1 5.3
***
Duration of prodromal symptoms/months before contact - mean 26.7 7.0 12.6 - sd 29.4 17.0 22.8
***
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
TABLE 6Treatment variables of the Poor and Good outcome groups during the two-year follow-up period
Poor Good Total
Outcome outcome
Variable N=17 N=61 N=78
Hospitalization (days) - mean 47.5 9.0 18 *** - sd 56.0 19.2 36.3
Use of neuroleptic drugs Not used 47.1 80.3 73.1 Ongoing or discontinued medication 52.9 19.7 28.9 ***
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ
Open dialogues with good and poor outcomes for psychotic crisis/ Jaakko Seikkula, 2002 /Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28(3):263 - 274
SUMMARY
Good outcome Poor outcome
Interactional dominance by clients 55-57% 10 – 35%
Semantic dominance by clients 50-70% 40 -70%
Symbolic language area in sequences 67 – 80% 0 – 20%
Dialogical dialogue in sequences 60 – 65% 10 – 50%
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ