Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38391820›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Ethical Issues in Clinical Decision-Making about Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment: A Scoping Review.

Cláudio Domingos Laureano, Carlos Laranjeira, Ana Querido, Maria Anjos Dixe, Francisca Rego

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A call for upstream solutions to the unregulated drug crisis in British Columbia, Canada: Locked up or locked out.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cláudio Domingos LaureanoPsychiatric and Mental Health Service, Local Health Unit of the Leiria Region-Hospital of Santo André, Rua das Olhalvas, 2410-197 Leiria, Portugal.
Carlos LaranjeiraCentre for Innovative Care and Health Technology (ciTechCare), Rua de Santo André-66-68, Campus 5, 13 Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2410-541 Leiria, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-1080-9535
Ana QueridoCentre for Innovative Care and Health Technology (ciTechCare), Rua de Santo André-66-68, Campus 5, 13 Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2410-541 Leiria, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5021-773X
Maria Anjos DixeCentre for Innovative Care and Health Technology (ciTechCare), Rua de Santo André-66-68, Campus 5, 13 Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2410-541 Leiria, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-9035-8548
Francisca RegoFaculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8083-7895
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria · PTUniversidade do Porto · PT

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia This work was supported by FCT-Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P. (UIDB/05704/2020 and UIDP/05704/2020) and by the Scientific Employment Stimu-lus-Institutional Call-[CEECINST/00051/2018].
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In mental health and psychiatric care, the use of involuntary psychiatric treatment for people with mental disorders is still a central and contentious issue. The main objective of this scoping review was to map and systematize the literature on ethical issues in clinical decision-making about involuntary psychiatric treatment. Five databases (Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus) were searched for articles on this topic. Out of a total of 342 articles found, 35 studies from 14 countries were included based on the selection criteria. The articles were analyzed using the inductive content analysis approach. The following main categories were identified: (1) ethical foundations that guide clinical decision-making; (2) criteria for involuntary psychiatric treatment; (3) gaps, barriers, and risks associated with involuntary psychiatric treatment; (4) strategies used to reduce, replace, and improve the negative impact of involuntary treatment; and (5) evidence-based recommendations. Most of the selected articles discuss the logic underlying involuntary treatment of the mentally ill, exploring ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, or justice, as well as how these should be properly balanced. During the process of involuntary psychiatric admission, there was a notable absence of effective communication and a significant power imbalance that disenfranchised those seeking services. This disparity was further intensified by professionals who often use coercive measures without a clear decision-making rationale and by family members who strongly depend on hospital admission. Due to the pluralistic and polarized nature of opinions regarding legal capacity and the complexity and nuance of involuntary admission, further studies should be context-specific and based on co-production and participatory research.

Indexed as

coercive measuresethicsinvoluntary psychiatric treatmentmoralreview

Identifiers

PMID38391820
PMCPMC10888148
OpenAlexW4391683963

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.