Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42725620›Full record

ArticleHarvard review of psychiatry

What Psychiatry Measures, and What It Misses: Flourishing as a Blind Spot in Patient-Centered Care.

Tyler J VanderWeele, Omar S Haque, John R Peteet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harvard review of psychiatry. 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

3 authors.

Tyler J VanderWeeleFrom Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (Dr. VanderWeele); Harvard Medical School (Drs. Haque and Peteet).
Omar S Haque
John R Peteet

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In psychiatry, judgments are routinely made that extend beyond symptom assessment and reduction to areas such as functioning, agency, responsibility, relationships, and meaning in life. Yet standard outcome measures focus narrowly on symptoms, sometimes implicitly treating these broader dimensions as peripheral or outside the scope of psychiatric care. Thus, there is a mismatch between what psychiatric practice actually influences and what it formally measures. The result is not value-neutral care, but rather value-laden care without explicit acknowledgment. We argue that measures of flourishing do not expand psychiatry's scope so much as make explicit the dimensions of patients' lives psychiatry already shapes. We suggest that incorporating flourishing measures into psychiatry can help align assessment with patient-centered care without requiring clinicians to adopt a comprehensive moral framework or exceed the boundaries of their professional expertise.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient-Centered CarePsychiatryHumansPsychological Well-Beingflourishingoutcome measurementpatient-centered carepsychiatric ethicswell-being

Identifiers

PMID42725620
PMCPMC13561093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.