Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39398960›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024

Shared decision-making in post-coercion debriefing interventions in psychiatry - a scoping review.

Katharina Froelich, Jan Schürmann, Christian G Huber, Manuel Trachsel

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Katharina FroelichClinical Ethics Unit, University Hospital Basel (USB), University Psychiatric Clinics (UPK) Basel, Geriatric University Hospital FELIX PLATTER Basel (UAFP), and University Children's Hospital Basel (UKBB), Basel, Switzerland.
Jan SchürmannClinical Ethics Unit, University Hospital Basel (USB), University Psychiatric Clinics (UPK) Basel, Geriatric University Hospital FELIX PLATTER Basel (UAFP), and University Children's Hospital Basel (UKBB), Basel, Switzerland.
Christian G HuberMedical Faculty, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Manuel TrachselClinical Ethics Unit, University Hospital Basel (USB), University Psychiatric Clinics (UPK) Basel, Geriatric University Hospital FELIX PLATTER Basel (UAFP), and University Children's Hospital Basel (UKBB), Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Debriefing is recommended after any coercive measure in psychiatry, but there are no wellestablished standards, and ist effectiveness remains unclear. Incorporating shared decision-making (SDM) into post-coercion debriefing interventions has potentially beneficial effects. Methods: This scoping review provides an overview of the general characteristics of such interventions and the extent to which SDM elements are already used in such interventions. Results: A total of 2562 references were identified in the scholarly databases Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO. In addition, 14 articles were identified through manual searches of reference lists. 42 full-text articles were screened for eligibility, 13 articles met the eligibility criteria and were further analyzed. Discussion: No intervention tool was found that clearly included all SDM elements. However, three elements of SDM were present at least partially in all interventions: definition and explanation of the health care problem, the clarification of the patient's values and preferences, and a decision or explicit deferral of the decision. Further research is needed to systematically examine the implementation and clinical effectiveness of post-coercion debriefing interventions, particularly regarding the inclusion of shared decision-making elements.

Indexed as

coerciondebriefingdecision aidspsychiatryscoping reviewshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID39398960
PMCPMC11466772

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.