Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29298728›Full record

ArticleIsrael journal of health policy research2018

Balancing autonomy and beneficence at the time of psychiatric discharge.

Abhishek Jain, Paul S Appelbaum

Abstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Israel journal of health policy research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Abhishek JainDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University, and New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Dr., New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Paul S AppelbaumDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University, and New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Dr., New York, NY, 10032, USA. psa21@columbia.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As in much of the world, mental health law in Israel has evolved over the past half-century toward greater protection of patients' liberty and an increased emphasis on due process. Part of that process in Israel involved taking decisions about prolonged involuntary hospitalization out of the hands of treating psychiatrists and turning them over to independent review panels. Argo and colleagues examined outcomes of discharge decisions made by these panels compared with treating psychiatrists. In this brief commentary, we describe related trends in mental health law in other countries, especially the U.S., consider countervailing perspectives on the role of review panels, and suggest how the Argo et al. study might be followed up with additional research.

Indexed as

BeneficenceCommitment of Persons with Psychiatric DisordersHumansIsraelPatient DischargePsychiatryAutonomyBeneficenceCivil commitmentDischargeEthicsInvoluntary hospitalizationJudicial reviewLawNon-medical decision-makingPsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID29298728
PMCPMC5753572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.