Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35903499›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2022

Juror decision-making regarding a defendant diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.

James Baker, Ian Edwards, Peter Beazley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

James BakerDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychological Therapies (CPPT), Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Ian EdwardsUEA Law School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Peter BeazleyDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychological Therapies (CPPT), Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8821-1213

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stigma is an established consequence of the Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) diagnosis. This diagnosis is subject to revision in the International Classification of Diseases-11th Revision (ICD-11). Using the legal issue of diminished responsibility, this study applied an experimental mock-jury methodology to explore the impact of diagnostic stigma of BPD on jury decision-making. Participants were allocated to one of two versions of a simplified fictitious homicide trial. The group whose defendant was described as having a 'severe personality disorder, borderline pattern' rated the defendant as more dangerous, and more in need of segregation and coercive treatment, than controls where the defendant was described as having a 'complex mental health problem'. Between-group differences in other measures, including the decision to agree a verdict of diminished responsibility, were not found. The ICD-11 'severe personality disorder, borderline pattern' diagnosis may adversely impact the attitudes of jurors considering the question of diminished responsibility.

Indexed as

borderline personality disorderBPDdiminished responsibilityjuriesjurymental healthmock jurypersonality disorderstigma

Identifiers

PMID35903499
PMCPMC9318233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.