Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
Research ArticleRegular Article

Clinicians Imagine a Patient's View: Rating Disclosures of Confidential Information

Graham Lindley Spruiell, Mark J. Hauser, Michael Lamport Commons and Eric Y. Drogin
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online September 2011, 39 (3) 379-386;
Graham Lindley Spruiell
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark J. Hauser
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Lamport Commons
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eric Y. Drogin
JD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    (119 Participants, 11 Items, 6 categories; 3.50 Neutral) The item Rasch scores are on the right side of the y-axis, and the Rasch scores for the participants are on the left. The more the participants were uncomfortable about disclosures, the higher the score appeared on the scale.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Summary of Results

    Survey ItemsThird PartyMSDtpEffect Size ηRasch MeasureInfit ErrorMNSQ
    I would authorize my clinician to:
    Give information regarding my treatment to anyone who might want it.Anyone1.07.484−54.538.00050.9813.00.335.30
    Discuss information regarding my treatment with companies that market pharmaceuticals, surgical supplies, and other health care products.Pharmaceutical1.480.913−24.01.00050.9811.50.111.2
    Discuss information regarding my treatment with my employer.Employer1.610.925−22.2.00050.8991.330.11.05
    Use information regarding my treatment without obtaining my consent as long as this is for educational purposes and identifying information is removed.Education without  consent3.312.033−0.996.3210.0920.040.071.14
    Discuss information regarding my treatment with members of my family who express concern with my treatment.Family3.71.6911.306.1940.122−0.20.071.11
    Release information in my medical record to my health insurance company.Insurance3.831.5831.969.0520.206−0.30.081.11
    Release information in my medical record to my pharmacist regarding medications prescribed for me.Pharmacist3.921.7932.5310.0130.223−0.30.071.37
    Include information about my treatment in professional articles he or she might write.Journals4.931.49410.46.00050.694−1.10.090.67
    Release information in my medical record to my doctor for educational purposes (to help train other clinicians, for example).Educational5.021.4211.652.00050.731−1.10.090.76
    Release information in my medical record to my doctor as part of research he or she is doing.Research5.061.35512.55.00050.756−1.20.10.61
    Release information in my medical record to other clinicians concerned with my treatment.Clinicians5.420.96421.59.00050.894−1.670.121.01
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Principal Component Analysis

    Component
    123
    Research.865−.279.273
    Journals.853−.283.300
    Educational.830−.308.305
    Without consent.622−.003.028
    Doctors.614−.196−.387
    Family.567.309−.111
    Employer.349.692.220
    Pharmaceutical.304.689.145
    Anyone−.135.655.506
    Pharmacist.480.329−.614
    Insurance.460.354−.476
    • Extraction method: principal component analysis. Three components extracted.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 39 (3)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 39, Issue 3
1 Sep 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinicians Imagine a Patient's View: Rating Disclosures of Confidential Information
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Clinicians Imagine a Patient's View: Rating Disclosures of Confidential Information
Graham Lindley Spruiell, Mark J. Hauser, Michael Lamport Commons, Eric Y. Drogin
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Sep 2011, 39 (3) 379-386;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Clinicians Imagine a Patient's View: Rating Disclosures of Confidential Information
Graham Lindley Spruiell, Mark J. Hauser, Michael Lamport Commons, Eric Y. Drogin
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Sep 2011, 39 (3) 379-386;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Appendix
    • Appendix
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • A Forensic Science-Based Model for Identifying and Mitigating Forensic Mental Health Expert Biases
  • Bias in Peer Review of Forensic Psychiatry Publications
  • Reconsidering the Relationship Between Criminal Insanity and Delusions
Show more Regular Article

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law