ArticleJournal of medical ethics2014
Psychiatric diagnosis: the indispensability of ambivalence.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- What's in a Name? Psychiatric Concept Creep and the Moral Legibility of Student Suffering within the Canadian University Context.Medical anthropology quarterly · 2026Article
- Before and After Prozac: Psychiatry as Medicine, and the Historiography of Depression.Culture, medicine and psychiatry · 2021Article
- A multimodal neuroimaging classifier for alcohol dependence.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Vulnerability as practice in diagnosing multiple conditions.Medical humanities · 2019Article
- Critical medical humanities: embracing entanglement, taking risks.Medical humanities · 2015Article
- Debating DSM-5: diagnosis and the sociology of critique.Journal of medical ethics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The author analyses how debate over the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has tended to privilege certain conceptions of psychiatric diagnosis over others, as well as to polarise positions regarding psychiatric diagnosis. The article aims to muddy the black and white tenor of many discussions regarding psychiatric diagnosis by moving away from the preoccupation with diagnosis as classification and refocusing attention on diagnosis as a temporally and spatially complex, as well as highly mediated process. The article draws on historical, sociological and first-person perspectives regarding psychiatric diagnosis in order to emphasise the conceptual-and potentially ethical-benefits of ambivalence vis-à-vis the achievements and problems of psychiatric diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.