Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41148500›Full record

ReviewDiscover mental health2025

Assessing autonomy in psychiatric practice: a narrative literature review.

Tasnia Disha, Evan Papavasiliou, Shane Gill

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Discover mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Tasnia DishaPrivate Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Practice, Fullarton, South Australia, Australia. reception@drtasnia.com.au.
Evan PapavasiliouPrivate Psychiatry Practice, Hawthorn, South Australia, Australia.
Shane GillPsychiatry Training, South Australian Psychiatry Training Committee, Glenside, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article's "Key Question" is: Does enforcing treatment restrict a person's autonomy, or is their mental illness their source of autonomy restriction with treatment seeking its restoration? While autonomy assessments occur in manifold contexts, distinguishing autonomy-undermining from autonomy-promoting influences can be difficult. This narrative literature review aims to conceptualise autonomy in a clinically useful way. Its construction is guided by the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles and the Narrative Overview Rating Scale. 126 journal articles, 11 peer-reviewed encyclopaedia articles, and 2 classic bioethical book chapters are reviewed. Autonomy is defined as "self-governance". Clinical and ethical utility lies in assessing autonomy's dimensions of "self" and conditions of "governance". These are: personal identity, liberty, relatedness, agency, decisional capacity, coherence, desire-orders, authenticity and temporality, further classifiable as procedural or substantive accounts of autonomy. Paternalism may not always conflict with autonomy. The Key Question is an ethical and clinical prism through which these various refractions of autonomy are examined and rendered usable. Autonomy ambiguities and conflicts are identified, along with contexts and patient presentations which may recommend that their autonomy assessment and Key Question answer lean towards one direction or the other, depending on the patient's unique evolving formulation. Through synthesising the broad interdisciplinary autonomy literature and its Key Question applications, this twelve-factor framework is offered to assess and enhance patient autonomy. Ultimately, it is hoped that in applying this framework to their own lived experience, people with mental illness might be empowered to expand awareness of their self and self-sovereignty.

Indexed as

AutonomyMental healthMental illnessPaternalismPsychiatry/psychologyRight to health care

Identifiers

PMID41148500
PMCPMC12569270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.