Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40454377›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2025

Age-bias in assessments of medical decision-making capacity: a cross-sectional experimental vignette study.

Melisa Minciocchi Urban, Karen A Sullivan, Kelly Purser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Melisa Minciocchi UrbanSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Karen A SullivanSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Kelly PurserAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate assessments about medical decision-making capacity (DMC) are vital but could be susceptible to age-bias. We examined if client age impacts on DMC likelihood assessment. One hundred and forty-seven adults were trained to identify four cognitive abilities (i.e., understanding, appreciation, reasoning, expression). Six experimental vignettes described a person making a diabetes treatment decision with systematic variation of client age (unspecified, 50-, or 95-years-old) and abilities (demonstrated vs uncertain). The dependent variable was DMC likelihood. Standardised tests of explicit (Kogan's Attitudes Toward Old People scale) and implicit age-bias (IAT) were administered. There was a statistically significant effect of abilities on DMC likelihood. DMC was judged more likely when cognitive abilities were demonstrated. There were no other significant effects. Age-bias, measured implicitly and explicitly, did not influence DMC likelihood. Contrary to the hypothesis, DMC likelihood was unaffected by client age. This suggests that training can mitigate age-bias in simulated clinical DMC evaluation.

Indexed as

ageismagingclinical judgementconsentdementiahealthcareimplicit biasmedical decision-making capacityunconscious bias

Identifiers

PMID40454377
PMCPMC12123955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.