ReviewDer Nervenarzt2014
[Chances and problems of the recovery approach from a psychiatric viewpoint].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The so-called recovery approach is consciously demarcated from traditional psychiatry and enforces claims to introduce a paradigmatically new view on mental healthcare. Recovery is perceived as an individual-centered activating process, enabling mentally ill persons to live with hope and meaning despite disabilities. In some countries recovery is widely used by psychiatric nurses and mental health workers and to some extent is now part of national health programs. Nevertheless, concerted discussions from a psychiatric perspective are rare and the nomenclature is sometimes vague. A brief review of the model, its theoretical roots and the discussion on whether it is novel is given. Finally, strengths and critical aspects of the approach are compared and clinical questions exemplified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24604716What 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.