ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2019
Psychiatric Advance Directives Under the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities: Why Advance Instructions Should Be Able to Override Current Preferences.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of Psychiatric Advance Directives Into the Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Record: Exploring the Promise and Limitations.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Differential treatment of individuals with mental health conditions in high-consequence decision-making: a comparison of policy on advance directives and assisted suicide in three European countries.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Advance directives in patients with schizophrenia.CNS spectrums · 2024Review
- Aligning the "single law" proposal to the CRPD standard of "will and preferences".World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2024Article
- Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2024Article
- Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives: A comparison of empirical research with stakeholders in three European countries.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2023Article
- Human rights promotion and the 'Geneva impasse' in mental healthcare: scoping review.BJPsych open · 2023Article
- Joint Crisis Plans and Crisis Cards in Inpatient Psychiatric Treatment—a Multicenter Randomized Controlled TrialDeutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Article
- Review
- Opportunities and risks of self-binding directives: A qualitative study involving stakeholders and researchers in Germany.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Equality in the Informed Consent Process: Competence to Consent, Substitute Decision-Making, and Discrimination of Persons with Mental Disorders.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2021Article
- Editorial: Human Rights and Mental Health: Current Developments in Competence Assessment and Supported Decision-Making.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Involuntary Detention and Treatment: Are We Edging Toward a "Paradigm Shift"?Schizophrenia bulletin · 2020Article
- A German Version of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale. Development and Empirical Validation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Supported Decision-Making and Paradigm Shifts: Word Play or Real Change?Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are documents by means of which mental health service users can make known their preferences regarding treatment in a future mental health crisis. Many states with explicit legal provisions for PADs have ratified the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). While important UN bodies consider PADs a useful tool to promote the autonomy of service users, we show that an authoritative interpretation of the CRPD by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has the adverse consequence of rendering PADs ineffective in situations where they could be of most use to service users. Based on two clinical vignettes, we demonstrate that reasonable clinical recommendations can be derived from a more realistic and flexible CRPD model. Concerns remain about the accountability of support persons who give effect to PADs. A model that combines supported decision making with competence assessment is able to address these concerns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.