Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34300121›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

An Ecological Model for High-Risk Professional Decision-Making in Mental Health: International Perspectives.

Cheryl Regehr, Guy Enosh, Emily Bosk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cheryl RegehrFactor-Inwentash, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada.
Guy EnoshSchool of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-3663-0496
Emily BoskSchool of Social Work, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8554, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mental health professionals are frequently presented with situations in which they must assess the risk that a client will cause harm to themselves or others. Troublingly, however, predictions of risk are remarkably inaccurate even when made by those who are highly skilled and highly trained. Consequently, many jurisdictions have moved to impose standardized decision-making tools aimed at improving outcomes. Using a decision-making ecology framework, this conceptual paper presents research on professional decision-making in situations of risk, using qualitative, survey, and experimental designs conducted in three countries. Results reveal that while risk assessment tools focus on

Indexed as

Mental HealthOccupationsDecision MakingHealth PersonnelHumansInternationalitySurveys and Questionnaireschild welfaredecision-makingmental healthrisk assessmentsocial worker

Identifiers

PMID34300121
PMCPMC8305590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.