ArticleIndian journal of psychiatry2026
Implications of new guidelines for assessment and certification of disability in mental illness in India.
Article in Indian journal of psychiatry, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Government of India revised the guidelines for assessment and certification of disability due to mental illness in March 2024, introducing important changes with wide reaching implications. The revised guidelines recommend the use of a version of the Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale (IDEAS) which appears to restrict certification to four psychiatric disorders, raising concerns about diagnosis-based exclusion. The shift from total illness duration to months of illness in the preceding two years is an improvement; however, it still measures 'illness' rather than disability or dysfunction. Requirements regarding a certain duration of illness before permanent certification, and ill-defined terms like "adequate" or "appropriate" treatment creates barriers to certification, particularly in a resource limited setting like India. Expansion of the medical authority and inclusion of private practitioners are welcome changes, although individual roles require greater clarity. While the revised guidelines introduce several positive changes, internal inconsistencies may further restrict access to disability certifications.
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.