Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36339872›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Opportunities and risks of self-binding directives: A qualitative study involving stakeholders and researchers in Germany.

Sarah Potthoff, Marleen Finke, Matthé Scholten, Astrid Gieselmann, Jochen Vollmann, Jakov Gather

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah PotthoffInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Marleen FinkeInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Matthé ScholtenInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Astrid GieselmannInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Jochen VollmannInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Jakov GatherInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Ruhr University Bochum · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Self-binding directives (SBDs) are a special type of psychiatric advance directive in which mental health service users can consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and involuntary treatment during future mental health crises. This study presents opportunities and risks of SBDs reported by users with bipolar disorder, family members of people with bipolar disorder, professionals working with people with bipolar disorder and researchers with expertise in mental health ethics and law. Methods: Seventeen semi-structured interviews with users, family members and professionals, and one focus group with five researchers were conducted. The data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Six opportunities and five risks of SBDs were identified. The opportunities were promotion of autonomy and self-efficacy of users, relief of responsibility for family members, early intervention, reduction of (perceived) coercion, positive impact on the therapeutic relationship and enhancement of professionals' confidence in decision-making. The risks were problems in the assessment of mental capacity, inaccurate information or misinterpretation, increase of coercion through misuse, negative impact on the therapeutic relationship due to noncompliance with SBDs, and restricted therapeutic flexibility and less reflection on medical decision-making. Stakeholders tended to think that the opportunities of SBDs outweigh their risks, provided that appropriate control and monitoring mechanisms are in place, support is provided during the drafting process and the respective mental healthcare setting is sufficiently prepared to implement SBDs in practice. Conclusions: The fact that stakeholders consider SBDs as an opportunity to improve personalized crisis care for people with bipolar disorder indicates that a debate about the legal and clinical implementation of SBDs in Germany and beyond is necessary.

Indexed as

advance statementcoercionjoint crisis planmental healthcarepsychiatric advance directiveUlysses arrangement

Identifiers

PMID36339872
PMCPMC9633858
OpenAlexW4306964196

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.