Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40231389›Full record

ReviewBJPsych bulletin2025

Engage? Disengage? Discharge? Ethical approaches to fraught questions.

Josephine Fielding, Rachel Swain, Jo Emmanuel, Graham Behr

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJPsych bulletin, 2025. 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.

Josephine FieldingHounslow Psychotherapy Service, West London NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7689-8801
Rachel SwainWest London Forensic Services, West London NHS Trust, London, UK.
Jo EmmanuelCentral and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Graham BehrWestminster Adult Mental Health Services, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents a framework to assist with the making of often challenging decisions about engagement and disengagement with patients across mental health services. The framework is based on Beauchamp & Childress's four principles of clinical ethics. We pose practical questions, illustrated by a clinical vignette, around these four principles in order to aid implementation of ethics-based decision-making. The framework is useful in both complex and seemingly straightforward issues. It can be used as a means of communicating what are often controversial decisions to fellow clinicians and patients.

Indexed as

community mental health teamsconsent and capacityEthicspatients/service usersquality of life

Identifiers

PMID40231389
PMCPMC12501519

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.