Capacity to consent to treatment in psychiatry inpatients - a systematic review.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-23 DOI:10.1080/13651501.2021.2017461
Aoife Curley, Carol Watson, Brendan D Kelly
{"title":"Capacity to consent to treatment in psychiatry inpatients - a systematic review.","authors":"Aoife Curley,&nbsp;Carol Watson,&nbsp;Brendan D Kelly","doi":"10.1080/13651501.2021.2017461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mental capacity for treatment decisions in psychiatry inpatients is an important ethical and legal concern, especially in light of changes in mental capacity legislation in many jurisdictions.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To conduct a systematic review of literature examining the prevalence of mental capacity for treatment decisions among voluntary and involuntary psychiatry inpatients, and to assess any correlations between research tools used to measure mental capacity and binary judgements using criteria such as those in capacity legislation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies assessing mental capacity for treatment decisions in people admitted voluntarily and involuntarily to psychiatric hospitals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-five papers emanating from 33 studies were identified. There was huge variability in study methods and often selective populations, but the prevalence of decision-making capacity varied between 5% and 83.7%. These figures resulted from studies using cut-off scores or categorical criteria only. The prevalence of decision-making capacity among involuntary patients ranged from 7.7% to 42%, and among voluntary patients ranged from 29% to 97.9%. Two papers showed positive correlations between clinicians' judgement of decision-making capacity and scores on the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment; two papers showed no such correlation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Not all voluntary psychiatry inpatients possess mental capacity and many involuntary patients do. This paradox needs to be clarified and resolved in mental health legislation; supported decision-making can help with this task.Key PointsLegislative changes for mental capacity are taking place in many jurisdictions.This is an important human rights issue for many people, including psychiatry inpatients.In our review, we found the prevalence of decision-making capacity varies between 5% and 83.7% in psychiatry inpatients.Not all voluntary inpatients have decision-making capacity.Many involuntary inpatients have mental capacity to make decisions.Supported decision-making can help those with impairments in their mental capacity.</p>","PeriodicalId":14351,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2021.2017461","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background: Mental capacity for treatment decisions in psychiatry inpatients is an important ethical and legal concern, especially in light of changes in mental capacity legislation in many jurisdictions.

Aims: To conduct a systematic review of literature examining the prevalence of mental capacity for treatment decisions among voluntary and involuntary psychiatry inpatients, and to assess any correlations between research tools used to measure mental capacity and binary judgements using criteria such as those in capacity legislation.

Method: We searched PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies assessing mental capacity for treatment decisions in people admitted voluntarily and involuntarily to psychiatric hospitals.

Results: Forty-five papers emanating from 33 studies were identified. There was huge variability in study methods and often selective populations, but the prevalence of decision-making capacity varied between 5% and 83.7%. These figures resulted from studies using cut-off scores or categorical criteria only. The prevalence of decision-making capacity among involuntary patients ranged from 7.7% to 42%, and among voluntary patients ranged from 29% to 97.9%. Two papers showed positive correlations between clinicians' judgement of decision-making capacity and scores on the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment; two papers showed no such correlation.

Conclusions: Not all voluntary psychiatry inpatients possess mental capacity and many involuntary patients do. This paradox needs to be clarified and resolved in mental health legislation; supported decision-making can help with this task.Key PointsLegislative changes for mental capacity are taking place in many jurisdictions.This is an important human rights issue for many people, including psychiatry inpatients.In our review, we found the prevalence of decision-making capacity varies between 5% and 83.7% in psychiatry inpatients.Not all voluntary inpatients have decision-making capacity.Many involuntary inpatients have mental capacity to make decisions.Supported decision-making can help those with impairments in their mental capacity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
精神科住院病人同意治疗的能力——一项系统回顾。
背景:精神科住院患者治疗决策的精神能力是一个重要的伦理和法律问题,特别是考虑到许多司法管辖区精神能力立法的变化。目的:对研究自愿和非自愿精神科住院患者在治疗决策中心理能力的流行程度的文献进行系统回顾,并评估用于测量心理能力的研究工具与使用能力立法等标准的二元判断之间的相关性。方法:我们检索了PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE和EMBASE,以评估自愿和非自愿进入精神病院的人的心理能力对治疗决策的影响。结果:来自33项研究的45篇论文被确定。研究方法有很大的可变性,通常是选择性人群,但决策能力的患病率在5%到83.7%之间。这些数据仅来自使用截止分数或分类标准的研究。非自愿患者有决策能力的比例为7.7% ~ 42%,自愿患者有决策能力的比例为29% ~ 97.9%。两篇论文显示临床医生对决策能力的判断与麦克阿瑟治疗能力评估工具得分呈正相关;有两篇论文没有显示出这种相关性。结论:并非所有自愿精神科住院病人都具有精神能力,许多非自愿精神科住院病人具有精神能力。这一矛盾需要在精神卫生立法中得到澄清和解决;支持决策可以帮助完成这项任务。许多司法管辖区正在对精神能力进行立法改革。对许多人,包括精神科住院病人来说,这是一个重要的人权问题。在我们的综述中,我们发现精神科住院患者的决策能力患病率在5%到83.7%之间。并非所有自愿住院病人都有决策能力。许多非自愿住院病人都有做决定的心智能力。辅助决策可以帮助那些智力受损的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.30%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice provides an international forum for communication among health professionals with clinical, academic and research interests in psychiatry. The journal gives particular emphasis to papers that integrate the findings of academic research into realities of clinical practice. Focus on the practical aspects of managing and treating patients. Essential reading for the busy psychiatrist, trainee and interested physician. Includes original research papers, comprehensive review articles and short communications. Key words: Psychiatry, Neuropsychopharmacology, Mental health, Neuropsychiatry, Clinical Neurophysiology, Psychophysiology, Psychotherapy, Addiction, Schizophrenia, Depression, Bipolar Disorders and Anxiety.
期刊最新文献
Mirtazapine blood levels and antidepressant response. Exploring real-world prescribing patterns for maintenance treatment in bipolar disorders: a focus on antidepressants and benzodiazepines. Real-world demographic and clinical profiles of patients with treatment-resistant depression initiated on esketamine nasal spray. Real-world outcomes of long-term use of silexan in patients with anxiety disorders: a single-centre experience. Neurobiological and psychological factors to depression.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1