Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39144784›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin open2022

Treatment Decision-Making Capacity in Forensic vs Non-forensic Psychiatric Patients: A European Comparison.

Chantal Marazia, Paola Rucci, Heiner Fangerau, Dilara Voßberg, Vasilija Rolfes, Laura Iozzino, Marica Iommi, Pawel Gosek, Janusz Heitzman, Clarissa Ferrari and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

18 authors.

Chantal MaraziaDepartment of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4637-0643
Paola RucciDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Heiner FangerauDepartment of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Dilara VoßbergDepartment of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Vasilija RolfesDepartment of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Laura IozzinoUnit of Epidemiological Psychiatry and Evaluation, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.
Marica IommiDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Pawel GosekDepartment of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland.
Janusz HeitzmanDepartment of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland.
Clarissa FerrariUnit of Statistics, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.
Ambra MacisUnit of Statistics, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.
Inga MarkiewiczDepartment of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland.
Marco PicchioniDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Science, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Hans Joachim SalizeCentral Institute of Mental Health Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas StompeClinical Division of Social Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Johannes WancataClinical Division of Social Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Paul S AppelbaumDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
Giovanni de GirolamoUnit of Epidemiological Psychiatry and Evaluation, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Consent to treatment is a cornerstone of medical ethics and law. Nevertheless, very little empirical evidence is available to inform clinicians and policymakers regarding the capacities of forensic patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) to make decisions about their treatment, with the risk of clinical and legal inertia, silent coercion, stigmatization, or ill-conceived reforms. Study Design: In this multinational study, we assessed and compared with treatment-related decisional capacities in forensic and non-forensic patients with SSD. 160 forensic and 139 non-forensic patients were used in Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, and England. Their capacity to consent to treatment was assessed by means of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T). Multiple generalized linear regression models were used to identify the socio-demographic and clinical variables associated with MacCAT-T scores. Study Results: In total, 55 forensic (34.4%) and 58 non-forensic patients (41.7%) showed high treatment-related decisional capacity, defined as scoring ≥75% of the maximum scores for the understanding, appreciation and reasoning, and 2 for expressing a choice. Forensic patients showed differences in their capacity to consent to treatment across countries. Of all socio-demographic and clinical variables, only "social support" was directly relevant to policy. Conclusions: Forensic patients have treatment-related decisional capacities comparable with their non-forensic counterparts. Social contacts might provide a substantial contribution towards enhancing the decisional autonomy of both forensic and non-forensic patients, hence improving the overall quality and legitimacy of mental health care.

Indexed as

capacity to consent to treatmentforensic psychiatryMacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatmentschizophrenia spectrum disorders

Identifiers

PMID39144784
PMCPMC11205899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.