Peer-supported Open Dialogue: a qualitative study of peer practitioners' experiences and non-peer practitioners' perspectives on peer involvement.

Abstract

Background: Peer-supported Open Dialogue (POD) integrates peer practitioners within mental health teams, fostering a collaborative, person-centred and social network approach to care. Although peer practitioners are increasingly involved in Open Dialogue, the role of peer practitioners within such teams remains underexplored.

Aims: This study aimed to explore (a) the experiences of peer practitioners working within Open Dialogue teams in the Open Dialogue: Development and Evaluation of a Social Intervention for Severe Mental Illness trial, and (b) the perspectives of non-peer Open Dialogue practitioners regarding peer involvement. Our further objectives were to understand the nature, degree and perceived impact of peer practitioner involvement in Open Dialogue.

Method: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and joint interviews with peer practitioners (n = 9). Additionally, excerpts from 11 interviews and 4 focus groups (n = 18), in which non-peer practitioners discussed peer practitioners' contributions in Open Dialogue, were analysed. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key themes.

Results: Three themes were developed. The first focuses on the perceived influence of peer practitioners on Open Dialogue network meetings; the second explores the opportunities and challenges of working as a peer practitioner in Open Dialogue, while the third details the perceived impact of peer practitioners on team and organisational culture.

Conclusions: Open Dialogue's emphasis on a flattened hierarchy facilitates the integration of peer practitioners, enabling them to contribute meaningfully to network meetings and team culture. Despite the overall positive experiences, peers still faced common challenges faced by those in other services, such as low pay and occasional instances of a compromised, flattened hierarchy.