Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39387448›Full record

ArticleAJOB neuroscience

Mental Health Conditions Between Neurodiversity and the Medical Model.

Julia Knopes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJOB neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Julia KnopesCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0003-4152-7848

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scholarship in neuroethics and related disciplines has long reflected on the value of different conceptual models of disability and impairment. While this theoretical work is valuable, centering the voices of people with mental health conditions in neuroethics research can help us better understand how such models apply in everyday people's lives. Drawing on qualitative data from a study on mental health peer providers' lived experiences of recovery, this paper will demonstrate that peers borrow from both a neurodiversity framework and the medical model of disability, though their feelings toward the two models were often complex and ambivalent. These findings advance neuroethics by indicating that future research and clinical practice should take a nuanced approach to responding to the needs of people with mental health conditions and turn to peers as experts, honoring their values and recognizing both the promise and pitfalls of living with a mental health condition.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental HealthPersons with DisabilitiesFemaleHumansMalePeer GroupBioethicsdisabilitymental healthmental illnessneurodiversity

Identifiers

PMID39387448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.