ReviewDer Nervenarzt2021
[Coercion in psychiatry: practical consequences of ethical aspects].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preventing, reducing, and attenuating restraint: A prospective controlled trial of the implementation of peer support in acute psychiatry.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Coercive Measures in Psychiatry: A Review of Ethical Arguments.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Review
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
Within the framework of the legal and ethical requirements of the application of coercion in psychiatry, the perspective of its prevention is discussed. Coercion is permissible exclusively in cases of incapability of self-determination and immediate specific danger for the patient's physical integrity or life. Practical difficulties in assessing these criteria are illustrated by means of case examples. Preventive procedures for avoidance of coercion (advance directives, trust-building procedures, recognition of influence of context, sensitization against coercion) as well as clarification of indications and control of the application of coercion and a change of attitude toward assistance of decision aim at strengthening respect for the right to self-determination of the mentally ill and thereby to fairly balance the psychiatrist's conflict between responsibility for care and respect for the right of self-determination of the patient.
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.