The document does not appear to be based on direct experiential expertise from people with lived experience of mental illness or PADs. The authors are academics from law and psychiatry backgrounds. While they reference a clinical vignette about "Mary" (noted as a real but de-identified case included with patient consent), the paper is primarily a legislative review and legal analysis rather than experiential research.

This document was not based primarily on practice wisdom. It was a legislative review that conducted systematic analysis of laws across all Australian states and territories regarding psychiatric advance directives (PADs) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). While it incorporated some clinical insights and referenced research on implementation challenges, the methodology was fundamentally legal analysis rather than practice-based inquiry or clinical experience.

This document was primarily based on legal analysis rather than research and evaluation insights. While it referenced some existing research on PAD implementation, uptake rates, and clinical concerns, the core methodology was legislative review and comparison across Australian jurisdictions. The paper cited studies showing low PAD utilisation (2.34% in Victorian hospitals) and clinician attitudes, but these were supporting evidence rather than the foundation of the analysis.