ReviewDer Nervenarzt2019
[What replaces the locked door? : Conceptual and ethical considerations regarding open door policies, formal coercion and treatment pressures].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Implementation of an Open Door Policy on Two Acute Care Units].Psychiatrische Praxis · 2024Article
- "Voluntary in quotation marks": a conceptual model of psychological pressure in mental healthcare based on a grounded theory analysis of interviews with service users.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Physical Restraint in Psychiatric Care: Soon to Fall Out of Use?Psychiatry and clinical psychopharmacology · 2021Review
- Types of Ethical Problems and Expertise in Clinical Ethics Consultation in Psychiatry - Insights From a Qualitative Empirical Ethics Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Under which conditions are changes in the treatment of people under involuntary commitment justified during the COVID-19 pandemic? An ethical evaluation of current developments in Germany.International journal of law and psychiatryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMental health professionals use various strategies to prevent involuntarily committed persons from absconding under an open door policy.
objectiveTo provide an ethical framework for the evaluation of the replacement of locked ward doors by formal coercion or treatment pressures.
methodsEmpirically informed conceptual and ethical analysis.
resultsThe replacement of locked ward doors by formal coercive measures applied to individual persons, such as mechanical restraint or seclusion, is ethically problematic. The use of treatment pressures, for example in the context of intensified observational measures, requires a differentiated ethical evaluation and does not necessarily constitute the milder means in comparison to locked ward doors.
conclusionUnexplored conceptual, empirical and ethical issues surrounding open door policies and treatment pressures should be clarified by means of psychiatric and ethical research. In clinical practice, the choice of the least burdensome and least restrictive measures for involuntarily committed persons should be facilitated by appropriate ethical support services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31073672What 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.