ArticleFocus (American Psychiatric Publishing)2019
Trends in Confidentiality and Disclosure.
Article in Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing), 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.
- Famous in the Emergency Department: Emergency Psychiatry, Law, and Ethics.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2023Article
- Legal Considerations in Emergency Psychiatry.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2023Review
- Who's the Boss? Ethical Dilemmas in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2022Article
- Anti-violence measures developed by ILO and WHO: Analysis of the prevalence of workplace violence and the effects of implementation in a general hospital in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Malpractice Liability Due to Patient Violence.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Confidentiality has long been a core value in medical ethics, but the parameters of this value have rapidly evolved. The principle is now best understood in the context of competing loyalties: Physicians owe patients a broad duty to protect confidences, but that duty is limited-in specific circumstances-by a competing obligation to protect the health of others and the general public welfare. The trend is increasingly toward more disclosure. The author examines three areas in which rules governing confidentiality have rapidly evolved in recent decades-the development of a duty to warn or protect potential third-party victims in the wake of the seminal California case of
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.