ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2025
Adequacy of the Risk Stratification Instrument in Mental Health: Experience Report.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto report the process of adapting a Mental Health Risk Stratification Instrument through a workshop.
methodsexperience report of the process of adapting an instrument, which is not validated, through a workshop with health professionals from the Psychosocial Care Network of a medium-sized city, using Paulo Freire's dialogical pedagogy as a methodological framework.
resultsthe workshop enabled dialogue, reflection and collective construction. The professionals identified weaknesses in the instrument, such as unclear descriptors, lack of criteria that considered socio-family and subjective aspects, and doubts regarding the applicability of risk categories. They suggested adjustments, discussed disagreements and sought consensus. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: mutual listening and the appreciation of professional experiences favored the appropriation of the instrument by the participants, strengthening the commitment to the qualification of mental health care and positively impacting the improvement of the work processes of the teams.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.