ArticleBMC psychiatry2018
An evaluation of functional mental capacity in forensic mental health practice: the Dundrum capacity ladders validation study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of decisional capacity. A systematic review and analysis of instruments regarding their applicability to requests for assisted suicide.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025Pooled it
- Neuroethics and treatment without consent.CNS spectrums · 2025Article
- Civil responsibility in Geriatric Psychiatry.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2021Article
- A tool to evaluate proportionality and necessity in the use of restrictive practices in forensic mental health settings: the DRILL tool (Dundrum restriction, intrusion and liberty ladders).BMC psychiatry · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecause of the potential gravity of finding a person incompetent, assessment of mental capacity is challenging for clinicians. We aimed to test validity of a new structured professional judgement tool designed to assess functional mental capacity in three domains - finances, welfare and healthcare.
methodsFifty-five male forensic psychiatric patients with Schizophrenia were interviewed using the Dundrum Capacity Ladders - a new semi-structured interview, and scores were assigned on a stratified scoring system, measuring ability to understand, reason, appreciate the personal importance of the decision at hand and communicate a decision. Data were also gathered pertaining to level of therapeutic security at the time of interview, diagnosis, neurocognitive function and a validated measure of real world function.
resultsThe results show that internal consistency and inter-rater reliability were high for all items. There were correlations between higher scores of functional mental capacity, neurocognitive function and measures of real world function in this population. Correlations were in the range 0.358 to 0.693, effect sizes that were moderate to high.
conclusionsThe DUNDRUM Capacity Ladders appear to be a valid measure of functional mental capacity in this population. Further prospective studies of functional mental capacity as a measure of recovery are now required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.