Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26759171›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

Decision-making capacity for research participation among addicted people: a cross-sectional study.

Inés Morán-Sánchez, Aurelio Luna, Maria Sánchez-Muñoz, Beatriz Aguilera-Alcaraz, Maria D Pérez-Cárceles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Exclusion of Participants for Substance Use in Clinical Trials.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Screening of problem gambling among a homeless population in Warsaw.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2019
    Article
  6. Ethical Issues in Research Involving Participants With Opioid Use Disorder.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Inés Morán-SánchezMental Health Centre (Health Service of Murcia), Real St 8, E-30201, Cartagena (Murcia), Spain. ines.moran@carm.es.
Aurelio LunaDepartment of Legal and Forensic Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute (IMIB), Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, (Murcia), Spain. aurluna@um.es.
Maria Sánchez-MuñozMental Health Centre (Health Service of Murcia), Real St 8, E-30201, Cartagena (Murcia), Spain. maria.sanchez25@carm.es.
Beatriz Aguilera-AlcarazIsaac Peral Health Centre (Health Service of Murcia), Ulloa St 6. E 30300, Cartagena (Murcia), Spain. bea.aguilera@gmail.com.
Maria D Pérez-CárcelesDepartment of Legal and Forensic Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute (IMIB), Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, (Murcia), Spain. mdperez@um.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformed consent is a key element of ethical clinical research. Addicted population may be at risk for impaired consent capacity. However, very little research has focused on their comprehension of consent forms. The aim of this study is to assess the capacity of addicted individuals to provide consent to research.

methods53 subjects with DSM-5 diagnoses of a Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and 50 non psychiatric comparison subjects (NPCs) participated in the survey from December 2014 to March 2015. This cross-sectional study was carried out at a community-based Outpatient Treatment Center and at an urban-located Health Centre in Spain. A binary judgment of capacity/incapacity was made guided by the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) and a clinical interview. Demographics and clinical characteristics were assessed by cases notes and the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Global Assessment Functional Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Scale.

resultsNPCs performed the best on the MacCAT-CR, and patients with SUD had the worst performance, particularly on the Understanding and Appreciation subscales. 32.7% SUD people lacked research-related decisional capacity. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of capacity to consent to research.

conclusionsThe findings of our study provide evidence that a large proportion of individuals with SUD had decisional capacity for consent to research. It is therefore inappropriate to draw conclusions about capacity to make research decisions on the basis of a SUD diagnosis. In the absence of advanced cognitive impairment, acute withdrawal or intoxication, we should assume that addicted persons possess decision-making capacity. Thus, the view that people with SUD would ipso facto lose decision-making power for research consent is flawed and stigmatizing.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMental CompetencyAdultBiomedical ResearchCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedResearch SubjectsSubstance-Related DisordersYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26759171
PMCPMC4710992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.