ArticleDer Nervenarzt2019
[After the reform is before the reform : Results of the amendment processes of mental health law in German federal states].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Open doors in psychiatric hospitals : An overview of empirical findings].Der Nervenarzt · 2019Pooled it
- [Procedural modalities of coercive treatment].Der Nervenarzt · 2026Article
- Macropsychology: A Systematic Scoping Review of the Psychology Literature on Public Policy and Law.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- [Monitoring of coercive measures and compulsory treatment in Germany].Der Nervenarzt · 2022Review
- Opportunities, risks and challenges in global mental health and population neuroscience: a case of Sino-German cooperation.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2021Review
- Refusing Medication Therapy in Involuntary Inpatient Treatment-A Multiperspective Qualitative Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOn the basis of mental health law, which differs between the federal states in Germany, courts can order the involuntary commitment of people with severe mental disorders in psychiatric hospitals, if they present a danger to themselves or to others. Due to decisions of the highest courts, these laws have been subject to revision since 2011. The aim of this paper is to analyze and compare the results of the revision processes in order to define the need for action for federal and state legislature. MATERIAL AND
methodsResearch of the current status of the revision processes in the federal states and a comparative analysis. The state laws were compared on the basis of selected particularly relevant areas with respect to human rights and treatment.
resultsIn spite of the revisions the state laws are extremely heterogeneous and in many states do not fully comply with the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD) or the highest courts' decisions.
conclusionThe state laws should be harmonized, particularly where they restrict basic and human rights, e. g. regarding prerequisites and objectives of involuntary commitment and coercive measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30191253What 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.