Cited by 29Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Extra information about treatment is too much for the patient with psychosis

Kennedy, Miriam, Dornan, Julieanne, Rutledge, Emer, O'Neill, Helen, Kennedy, Harry G.·2009·International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Case law across jurisdictions requires ever more complete disclosure of material facts when obtaining consent to treatment.Aims To determine whether giving extra information impairs the mental capacity to make decisions about treatment.Method The MacCAT-T, MacCAT-FP, PANSS and GAF were administered to 88 detained forensic patients with psychosis. Two positive and two negative facts were given about each of two anti-psychotic drugs, and no treatment (twelve items). A choice was elicited. The criterion for incompetence was inability to express a choice. Two extra positive and two extra negative facts about each of the three options were given (twelve extra items) and a choice was again elicited, while repeating the MacCAT-T.Results Giving extra information led to a decline in the total score on the MacCAT-T. Twenty one were initially unable to make a choice (24%). After additional information, 33 were incapable (37.5%, Chi-squared p<0.001). Those initially incapable had the lowest scores on all measures of functional capacity and GAF, with highest scores for symptoms. Those able to choose a treatment option had the highest levels of function and least symptoms. Those who became incapable had intermediate scores.Conclusions Giving extra information made an extra 15% unable to choose. Clinical judgement must be exercised concerning the amount of information disclosed. Deciding what is material to the individual is arbitrary when so few items of information can be processed. Greater use of guardianship and independent second opinions is recommended.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.09.006

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The proportion unable to express a choice increased to 37.5% if more information was given.

    “increasing to 37.5% (95% CI [27 -48%]) if more information was given (Kennedy et al., 2009).”
  • Around 25% of patients were unable to express a choice between two medications or no treatment.

    “Regarding the ability to decide between two medications or no treatment, around 25% of patients were unable to express a choice (Dornan et al., 2015;Kennedy et al., 2009;Rutledge et al., 2008)”
  • Positive symptoms were found to be associated with incapacity in 8 studies, especially conceptual disorganization, manic symptoms, delusions and unusual thought content.

    “Positive symptoms were found to be associated with incapacity in 8 studies (Dornan et al., 2015;Fraguas et al., 2007;Kennedy et al., 2009;Mandarelli et al., 2018b;G. Owen et al., 2009;Skipworth et al., 2013;Spencer et al., 2018), especially conceptual disorganization (G.Owen et al., 2009;Skipworth et al., 2013), manic symptoms (Mandarelli et al., 2014(Mandarelli et al., , 2018b;;Spencer et al., 2”
  • Being able to express a choice was significantly associated with better global functioning, lower positive symptoms and overall psychopathology.

    “Through nonparametric analysis, being able to express a choice was also significantly associated with better global functioning (Kennedy et al., 2009;Rutledge et al., 2008), as well as lower positive symptoms and overall psychopathology (Kennedy et al., 2009;Rutledge et al., 2008).”
  • Low global functioning predicted incapacity in four studies.

    “Finally, low global functioning predicted incapacity in four studies (Dornan et al., 2015;Kennedy et al., 2009;Rutledge et al., 2008;Tor et al., 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kennedy, M., Dornan, J., Rutledge, E., O'Neill, H., & Kennedy, H. G.
Affiliations
  • Central Mental Hospital (IE)
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Kennedy, Harry G.
Venue
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-11
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
369-376
ISSN
0160-2527 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038488309
Cited by
29
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
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 › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
informed consent, treatment refusal, decision-making capacity, psychosis, forensic psychiatric patients, antipsychotic drugs, guardianship, second opinion, functional capacity
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Ireland, Male, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Participation, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Mental Competency, Treatment Outcome, Disclosure, Comprehension

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