ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2020
Factors underlying clinicians' judgements of patient insight and confidence in using clinical judgement in psycho-legal settings.
Article in Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the factors that clinicians use to make clinical judgements of insight and their confidence in using clinical judgement across three clinical and forensic assessment domains. The 12 participating clinicians rated 30 DVD vignettes of psychiatric patients with a psychotic disorder. Qualitative analyses revealed eight themes that align closely with the dimensions of insight reported in the literature. However, it is unclear how clinicians weigh each dimension. The clinicians were more confident in making a judgement on insight for treatment planning than for involuntary treatment or fitness to stand trial evaluations. They wanted more information when making a judgement in the forensic domains, recognising the greater consequences for the patients and the greater level of scrutiny of their judgements in legal settings compared to clinical settings. The data obtained suggest that both clinical and forensic assessment of insight would benefit from empirically derived structured professional judgement (SPJ) tools.
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.