ReviewDer Nervenarzt2019
[Autonomy focusing as guiding idea of minimally restrictive psychiatry].
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 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.
- Patient Perspectives on Open-Door Policies in Psychiatry: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- [Implementation of an Open Door Policy on Two Acute Care Units].Psychiatrische Praxis · 2024Article
- Comparing attitudes towards compulsory interventions in severe and persistent mental illness among psychiatrists in India and Switzerland.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- [The DGPPN congress 2022: Ethics, law and mental health].Der Nervenarzt · 2022Article
- [Implementation of the UN-CRPD in patients who are not capable of self-determination].Der Nervenarzt · 2022Article
- Evaluation of coercive measures in different psychiatric hospitals: the impact of institutional characteristics.BMC psychiatry · 2021Observational
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
Coercion and violence in psychiatric inpatient settings represent a serious challenge. This challenge cannot be successfully met just by denying any legitimation of coercive measures or by assuming that violence from the patients' side is a fateful complication. Coercive measures are essentially approximative solutions of interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts of autonomy, if these cannot be resolved without violence. Therefore, prevention of coercive measures can only succeed when the focus is on the needs and rights for autonomy of all subjects involved, including patients, relatives and staff. Autonomy-focused psychiatry targets transparency of conflicts of interests and aims at limiting coercive measures to the absolute minimum necessary by preventive means. A number of effective measures are available to achieve a comprehensive implementation strategy. Using these measures in clinical practice must evolve, however, during a dynamic continuous improvement process and implementation should be based on the local as well as legal, administrative and architectural situation and the available human resources. The presently widespread prioritization of opening closed psychiatric wards is insufficient to effectively minimize coercion and violence in psychiatric inpatient settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31073675What 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.