Cited by 23Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareSchizophrenia research and treatment

The capacity of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder individuals to make autonomous decisions about pharmacological treatments for their illness in real life: A scoping review

Open access
Pons, Enric Vincens, Salvador‐Carulla, Luis, Calcedo‐Barba, Alfredo, Paz, Silvia, Messer, Thomas, Pacciardi, Bruno, Zeller, Scott L.·2020·Health Science Reports

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Having decision making capacity is central to the exercise of autonomy in mental health care. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the evidence on the capacity of people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder to make decisions about their treatment in real life to support medical practice. METHODS: Systematic search of observational studies on the assessment of capacity of patients with schizophrenia, psychosis, or bipolar disorder to make healthcare and treatment-related decisions, conducted in any clinical setting published up to January 31, 2020 was performed. Free text searches and medical subject headings in English were combined in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycInfo. Publications were selected as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies was used to assess the quality of publications. RESULTS: Thirty publications were reviewed. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria, the publications reviewed were good quality. Findings showed that more than 70% of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder outpatients understood treatment options at the point of making decisions about their illness and healthcare. Patients treated voluntarily had considerably better scores for decisional capacity than those treated involuntarily. The burden of psychiatric symptoms could compromise decisional capacity temporarily. Decision-making capacity improved over time from admission to discharge from hospital, and with treatment among psychiatry inpatients. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients could be as competent as nonpsychiatric individuals in making decisions about their treatments in everyday life. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides a body of evidence for healthcare professionals in need of assessing the capacity of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients for autonomously decide about their treatments. Decisional capacity judgements should consider variations in capacity over time and be based on the type of decision to be made, the severity of symptoms, and the specific phase of the mental disorder.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hsr2.179

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is no clear consensus regarding capacity in patients admitted involuntarily or voluntarily to hospital.

    “There is also no clear consensus regarding patients admitted involuntarily or voluntarily to hospital (Pons et al., 2020), (Curley, Watson, & Kelly, 2021;Pons et al., 2020).”

    From Decision making capacity for treatment in psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Pons et al., 2020

    The Results sections on involuntary admission and retained capacity after admission show that admission status does not determine an individual patient’s capacity: some involuntarily admitted patients retained high capacity. But the review does not report a lack of consensus; it consistently reports greater capacity among voluntarily admitted patients and more frequent incapacity among those admitted involuntarily. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Pons, E. V., Salvador‐Carulla, L., Calcedo‐Barba, A., Paz, S., Messer, T., Pacciardi, B., & Zeller, S. L.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychiatry Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Sant Boi de Llobregat Barcelona Spain
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Department of Psychiatry, Hospital Gregorio Marañón Medical School at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid Spain
  • SmartWriting4U Benicassim Spain
  • Department of Psychiatry Danuviusklinik Pfaffenhofen Germany
  • University of Pisa (IT)
  • University of California System (US)
Venue
Health Science Reports
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-08-09
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
e179-e179
ISSN
2398-8835 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048614940
Cited by
23
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Science Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
decision-making capacity, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, autonomy, treatment decision-making, voluntary treatment, involuntary treatment, psychiatric inpatients, psychiatric outpatients, symptom burden, competency assessment, mental health law

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review