Open Dialogue is a need‐adapted approach to mental health care that was originally developed in Finland. Like other need‐adapted approaches, Open Dialogue aims to meet consumer’s needs and promote collaborative person‐centred dialogue to support recovery. Need‐adapted mental health care is distinguished by flexibility and responsiveness. Fidelity, defined from an implementation science perspective as the delivery of distinctive interventions in a high quality and effective fashion is a key consideration in health care. However, flexibility presents challenges for evaluating fidelity, which is much easier to evaluate when manualization and reproducible processes are possible. Hence, it remains unclear whether Open Dialogue and other need‐adapted mental health interventions can be meaningfully evaluated for fidelity. The aim of this paper was to critically appraise and advance the evaluation of fidelity in need‐adapted mental health care, using Open Dialogue as a case study. The paper opens a discussion about how fidelity should be evaluated in flexible, complex interventions, and identifies key questions that need to be asked by practitioners working in need‐adapted mental health care to ensure they deliver these interventions as intended and in an evidence‐based fashion.
Background
Literature on long-term real-world vaccine effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines (up to and beyond 360 days) is scarce. We report estimates of protection against symptomatic infection, emergency department (ED) attendances and hospitalizations up to and beyond 360 days post-receipt of booster mRNA vaccines amongst Singaporeans aged ≥60 years during an Omicron XBB wave.
Methods
We conducted a population-based cohort study including all Singaporeans aged ≥60 years with no documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had previously received ≥3 doses of mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2/mRNA-1273), over a 4-month period during transmission of Omicron XBB. We reported the adjusted incidence-rate-ratio (IRR) for symptomatic infections, ED attendances and hospitalizations at different time-intervals from both first and second boosters, using Poisson regression; with the reference group being those who received their first booster 90 to 179 days prior.
Results
506,856 boosted adults were included, contributing 55,846,165 person-days of observation. Protection against symptomatic infections among those who received a third vaccine dose (first booster) waned after 180 days with increasing adjusted IRRs; however, protection against ED attendances and hospitalizations held up, with comparable adjusted IRRs with increasing time from third vaccine doses [≥360 days from third dose: adjusted IRR (ED attendances) = 0.73, 95%CI = 0.62-0.85; adjusted IRR (hospitalization) = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.49-0.70].
Conclusions
Our results highlight the benefit of a booster dose in reducing ED attendances and hospitalizations amongst older adults aged ≥60 years with no documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, during an Omicron XBB wave; up to and beyond 360 days post-booster. A second booster provided further reduction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.