Could a new Mental Health Act distort clinical judgement? A Bayesian justification of naturalistic reasoning about risk

摘要: Background: The proposed new Mental Health Act for England and Wales places a premium on identifying substantial clinical risk. This raises the question of how justifiable judgements about risk can be made when evidence in this area is based upon frequentist statistical analysis which limited value practice. Aims: To develop model judgement that articulates relationship between results classical research real-time reasoning professionals Methods: We use Bayesian framework to explore respective roles quantities relating classes qualitative data idiosyncratic individuals Results: naturalistic within central. Conclusions: Data stands as literature recedes become background knowledge practice, while difficult-to-quantify information idiosyncr...