Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31507727›Full record

ArticleInternational psychiatry : bulletin of the Board of International Affairs of the Royal College of Psychiatrists2013

Australia's mental health legislation.

Kenneth C Kirkby, Scott Henderson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in International psychiatry : bulletin of the Board of International Affairs of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kenneth C KirkbyProfessor of Psychiatry, University of Tasmania, Australia, email ken.kirkby@utas.edu.au.
Scott HendersonEmeritus Professor, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Australia has a generally progressive approach to mental health law, reflective of international trends in human rights. Responsibility for most legislation is vested in the six States and two Territories, a total of eight jurisdictions, such that at any given time several new mental health acts are in preparation. In addition there is a model mental health act that promotes common standards. Transfer of orders between jurisdictions relies on Memoranda of Understanding between them, and is patchy. State and Territory legislation is generally cognisant of international treaty obligations, which are themselves the preserve of the Federal Parliament and legislature. UK legislation has had a key influence in Australia, the 1959 Mental Health Act in particular, with its strong emphasis on voluntary hospitalisation, prefacing deinstitutionalisation.

Identifiers

PMID31507727
PMCPMC6735097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.