ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2020
Absence of insight as a catch-all extra-legislative factor in Swedish mental health law proceedings.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Redux? Therapeutic Risk Taking and the Role of Supported Decision Making in Mental Health Settings.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Dual-roles and beyond: values, ethics, and practices in forensic mental health decision-making.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- Caregivers' experiences of providing care to female patients in Swedish forensic psychiatric care.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Forensic psychiatric patients' experiences of participating in administrative court proceedings concerning the continuation of forensic psychiatric care.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research indicates that insight is frequently used but rarely defined in mental health proceedings. This article examines how participants in Swedish administrative court proceedings use the concept of insight when discussing decisions regarding involuntary psychiatric care. Open-ended qualitative interviews were conducted with professional mental health court participants. The results show that lack of insight is used by the informants as an argument for all three legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric care in Sweden, as well as the criterion for release from forensic psychiatric care. It is concluded that there are troublesome legal and ethical implications of courts relying on a poorly defined concept such as insight in their rulings.
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.