Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38053411›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2023

Advance statements in mental healthcare: time to close the evidence to practice gap.

Antonio Lasalvia, Sara Patuzzo, Esther Braun, Claire Henderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Antonio LasalviaSection of Psychiatry, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9963-6081
Sara PatuzzoDepartment of Surgery, Dentistry, Paediatrics and Gynaecology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Esther BraunInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Claire HendersonHealth Service and Population Research Department P029, David Goldberg Centre, King's College London Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6998-5659

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article discusses advance statements in mental health care, which allow individuals with mental disorders to express their preferences for treatment during mental health crises. Despite the evidence supporting their effectiveness, their implementation in clinical practice remains limited. This article explores variations among advance statements, such as psychiatric advance directives (PADs), joint crisis plans (JCPs) and self-binding directives (SBDs), highlighting their content, development process and legal status. We outline the benefits of advance statements, including empowerment, early intervention, improved therapeutic relationships and reduced compulsory admissions. We then draw attention to the challenges that may contribute to their lack of implementation, including legal complexities, communication issues, cultural factors, potential inequities, healthcare provider knowledge, changing preferences, resource constraints, crisis responses, data privacy, family involvement, and long-term evaluation. In conclusion, advance statements offer significant benefits but require addressing these critical aspects to ensure ethical and effective use. Bridging the evidence-to-practice gap is essential, with a focus on implementation science. Integrating these tools into routine clinical practice can significantly benefit individuals with severe mental disorders and mental health systems.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesAdvance DirectivesHumansMental HealthProfessional Practice Gapscommunity mental healthdiscriminationethicsrights of persons with disabilitiessocial and political issues

Identifiers

PMID38053411
PMCPMC10803188

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.