Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647066›Full record

ReviewInnovations in clinical neuroscience

Bias in Assessing Decision-making Capacity in Patients with Serious Mental Illness in Hospital Settings.

Alexandria Nasr, Larrilyn Grant, Jennifer Golida, Bailey N Hangen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Innovations in clinical neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Alexandria NasrAll authors are affiliated with the Boonshoft School of Medicine at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.
Larrilyn GrantAll authors are affiliated with the Boonshoft School of Medicine at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.
Jennifer GolidaAll authors are affiliated with the Boonshoft School of Medicine at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.
Bailey N HangenAll authors are affiliated with the Boonshoft School of Medicine at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decision-making capacity (DMC) is a core element of ethical and effective clinical care, ensuring that patients can understand, appreciate, reason through, and communicate informed choices about treatment. Accurate assessment of DMC is essential in psychiatric settings, where serious mental illness (SMI) may affect cognition, insight, or judgment, yet does not inherently imply incapacity. This paper examines how implicit, racial, and cognitive biases can influence DMC evaluations and contribute to disparities, particularly for Black and Hispanic patients with SMI. Diagnostic overshadowing, assumptions about insight, and misinterpretation of culturally influenced communication may lead to incorrect determinations of incapacity and undermine patient autonomy. Evidence indicates that while cognitive impairment is a significant contributor to reduced DMC, many individuals with SMI retain the ability to make reasoned treatment decisions. Standardized tools-such as the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool and related instruments-can improve reliability and mitigate subjective judgment, though current measures lack explicit integration of cultural and racial considerations. This paper highlights strategies to reduce bias in DMC assessments, including clinician education, development of culturally informed protocols, interdisciplinary decision-making, and expanded access to advocacy resources. These efforts support equitable, accurate, and ethically grounded evaluation of patient capacity across diverse clinical populations.

Indexed as

autonomycapacity assessmentcultural competenceDecision-making capacitydiagnostic overshadowingimplicit biasinformed consentserious mental illness

Identifiers

PMID41647066
PMCPMC12872050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.