ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2026
Treatment decision making in patients with bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a comparison.
Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Increasing participation of people with thought disorder in clinical research.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigates the decision-making capacities of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD), focusing on differences across four dimensions assessed by the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T): Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, and Expressing a Choice. A total of 398 patients (237 SSD and 161 BD) were included, with data collected from both inpatient and outpatient settings. Patients with SSD exhibited greater psychopathological severity, were predominantly male, and had a lower level of education compared to BD patients. No significant differences were found between groups in Understanding, Reasoning, or Choice dimensions of the MacCAT-T. However, BD patients scored higher in the Appreciation domain, indicating a better ability to recognize the relevance of medical information to their personal circumstances. Psychopathological severity, measured by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), significantly influenced MacCAT-T scores. In SSD patients, conceptual disorganization and lack of judgment negatively impacted decision-making, while BD patients were adversely affected by somatic concerns and hostility. Cognitive impairments, particularly in SSD, appeared to contribute to differences in the Appreciation domain. The study highlights the influence of psychopathology on decisional capacity in severe mental illness, with implications for tailored clinical interventions. Despite similar overall capacity levels between groups, further research is needed to explore the role of cognitive and contextual factors in shaping these abilities. These findings support the use of standardized tools to guide clinical assessments and ensure informed decision-making in psychiatric care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40736673What 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.