ArticleRand health quarterly2025
Psychiatric Advance Directives: A Review of the Evidence.
Article in Rand health quarterly, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) offer individuals with psychiatric conditions the opportunity to document their preferences for treatment and interactions during a mental health crisis before that crisis occurs. In completing a PAD, individuals are encouraged to identify and document their preferences for medication management, setting of care, points of contact, a decisionmaking surrogate, and ways of interacting with emergency response and health care teams. Although PADs have grown in popularity and their legality has been increasingly recognized in international contexts and among individual U.S. states, evidence regarding their use is not well synthesized or documented. In this environmental scan, the authors take a broad approach that combines evidence from systematic reviews, primary empirical literature, and grey literature to better understand the state of the evidence regarding implementing PADs in community, inpatient, and outpatient contexts. The authors sought to identify the potential and realized benefits of PADs, the barriers to the adoption and implementation of PADs, and promising practices for PAD implementation. This study summarizes those findings and can help inform future efforts to develop and implement PADs. Overall, PADs are a promising tool to improve care for individuals with serious mental illness; however, implementation requires clear legal guidance and clinician buy-in to ensure the effectiveness of PADs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41031387PMC12479008What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.