Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Patients' responses to their own case reports.

R J Stoller1

  • 1University of California Medical School, Los Angeles.

Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association
|January 1, 1988
PubMed
Summary

Patient review of research reports improves scientific and ethical standards in medical writing and publication. Empowering patients in this process enhances data accuracy and ethical reporting.

Keywords:
Mental Health TherapiesProfessional Patient Relationship

Related Experiment Videos

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The bisexual identity of transsexuals: Two case examples.

Archives of sexual behavior·2013
Same author

Two monozygotic (identical) twin pairs discordant for gender identity.

Archives of sexual behavior·2013
Same author

Notes on Foucault.

Psychoanalytic review·1996
Same author

Commentary to "The socialization of homosexuality and heterosexuality in a non-Western society.

Archives of sexual behavior·1989
Same author

Theories of origins of male homosexuality. A cross-cultural look.

Archives of general psychiatry·1985
Same author

Psychiatry"s mind-brain dialectic, or the Mona Lisa has no eyebrows.

The American journal of psychiatry·1984

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Scientific Publication
  • Patient-Centered Research

Background:

  • Current medical publication practices often exclude patients from the reporting process.
  • This exclusion raises ethical concerns regarding patient autonomy and accurate representation.
  • Scientific integrity can be compromised without direct patient input.