Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36915550›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Defining the tasks of clinical reasoning in forensic psychiatric evaluation: Psychomedicolegal analysis competency.

Natalia Widiasih Raharjanti, Diantha Soemantri, Tjhin Wiguna, Ardi Findyartini, Agus Purwadianto, Wresti Indriatmi, Elizabeth Kristi Poerwandari, Marlina S Mahajudin, Nadia Rahmadiani Nugrahadi, Aisha Emilirosy Roekman and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Natalia Widiasih RaharjantiDepartment of Psychiatry, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Diantha SoemantriDepartment of Medical Education, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Tjhin WigunaDepartment of Psychiatry, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Ardi FindyartiniDepartment of Medical Education, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Agus PurwadiantoForensic Department, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Wresti IndriatmiDermatology and Venerology Department, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Elizabeth Kristi PoerwandariFaculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Marlina S MahajudinDepartment of Psychiatry, Airlangga University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
Nadia Rahmadiani NugrahadiDepartment of Psychiatry, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Aisha Emilirosy RoekmanDepartment of Psychiatry, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Ronald LeonardoDepartment of Psychiatry, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Adhitya Sigit RamadiantoDepartment of Psychiatry, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Monika Kristi LevaniaDepartment of Psychiatry, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Rumah Sakit Umum Pusat Nasional Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo · IDAirlangga University · IDUniversity of Indonesia · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Inconsistency in the quality of forensic psychiatry report has been criticized for several years. Yet, there are limited guidelines to provide minimally satisfactory forensic psychiatry evaluation conducted by psychiatrists. In addition to the impact towards the forensic psychiatry service, this lack of standardized guidelines may impact the relevant competency development and its various teaching methods of forensic psychiatry among general psychiatrists. Therefore, this study aims to identify components of psychomedicolegal analysis competency as a form of clinical reasoning in forensic psychiatry. Methods: A comprehensive literature review and expert panel discussions were conducted simultaneously to formulate an initial list of psychomedicolegal analysis competency. A total of fourteen experts were chosen based on their expertise in different disciplines that have intersections with forensic psychiatry and the general psychiatry curriculum (e.g. general psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrists and psychologist, law practitioner, and medical education director). The expert panel were instructed to score and provide feedbacks on the items of the initial list. Four-point Likert scale were used in order for the experts to express the relevancy of the core competence to forensic psychiatry practice until it reached the consensus. Results: The final 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency were developed after three rounds of Delphi technique and reached a consensus (>70% and medians score of at least 3,25). These competency then categorized into four steps 1) preparing the case (Item 1-11), 2) conducting the evaluation (Item 12-41), 3) writing the report (42-51), and 4) giving expert opinion in court (Item 52-60). Conclusion: We developed 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency that can be used as a standardized guide for psychiatrists to conduct forensic psychiatry evaluation, write the report and provide expert opinion in court. Implementation of this guideline can be used to shape further forensic psychiatry education for general psychiatrist and psychiatry residency.

Indexed as

Clinical reasoningCore competenceForensic psychiatry evaluationGeneral psychiatrists

Identifiers

PMID36915550
PMCPMC10006738
OpenAlexW4321768973

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.