Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35042398›Full record

ArticlePsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2022

Rapprochement and Reform: Overcoming Factionalism in Policy Making for Serious Mental Illness.

William R Smith, Dominic A Sisti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2022. 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. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

William R SmithDepartment of Psychiatry (Smith) and Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy (Sisti), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dominic A SistiDepartment of Psychiatry (Smith) and Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy (Sisti), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

Educating Physician Scientists in Psychiatry (EPSP): Firing up the next generation of translational and clinical neuroscientistsR25MH119043 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Mariella De Biasi, MATTHEW S KAYSER · 2019 to 2026
$1.6M
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH119043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article traces the history of factionalism in policy making and advocacy for persons with serious mental illness from deinstitutionalization to the present. The authors draw on deliberative democratic theory to illustrate how factionalist advocacy causes advocates and policy makers to fail in their duties to represent and develop policy in support of people with serious mental illness. The authors discuss how this factionalism has bred distrust and undermined efforts to address the needs of people with serious mental illness. They propose the formation of a Public Mental Health Policy Commission, guided by principles of deliberative democracy, to overcome factionalism and to improve policy making to meet the needs of people with serious mental illness. The commission must include a diverse array of stakeholders, especially individuals with lived experience of serious mental illness.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersPolicy MakingHealth PolicyHumansBiden AdministrationDeinstitutionalizationEthicsPoliticsPsychosesPublic policy

Identifiers

PMID35042398
PMCPMC9713899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.