Cited by 38Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsSchizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and Psychiatry

The MacArthur competence assessment tools for assessing decision-making capacity in schizophrenia: A meta-analysis

Wang, Shi-Bin, Wang, Yuan-Yuan, Ungvari, Gabor S., Ng, Chee H., Wu, Ren-Rong, Wang, Jijun, Xiang, Yu-Tao·2017·Schizophrenia Research

Abstract

Objective This meta-analysis aimed to examine the decisional capacity measured by the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tools (MacCAT) in schizophrenia.Method English (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) and Chinese (Wan Fang Database and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure) databases were systematically and independently searched from 1995 until August 1, 2016. Weighted and standardized mean differences were calculated. The random effects model was used in all cases.Results Altogether 10 studies were identified, with 7 studies using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) and 3 studies using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T). The meta-analysis showed that there was significant impairment in decision-making capacity in schizophrenia patients compared to the healthy control group in terms of Understanding (SMD=-0.81, 95% CI: -1.06 to -0.56, P<0.001), Reasoning (SMD=-0.57, 95% CI: -0.80 to -0.34, P<0.001), Appreciation (SMD=-0.87, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.53, P<0.001), and Expression a choice (SMD=-0.24, 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.05, P=0.01).Conclusion Compared to the control group, schizophrenia patients are more likely to have impaired decision-making capacity in clinical research and treatment as measured by the MacCAT instruments. Researchers and clinicians need to consider the impaired decisional capacity in schizophrenia patients providing informed consent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.schres.2016.11.020

Cites

36 of 36 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, S.-B., Wang, Y.-Y., Ungvari, G. S., Ng, C. H., Wu, R.-R., Wang, J., & Xiang, Y.-T.
Affiliations
  • University of Macau (MO)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Central South University (CN)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Xiang, Yu-Tao
Venue
Schizophrenia Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
183
Pages
56-63
ISSN
0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2556999017
Cited by
38
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
schizophrenia, decision-making capacity
MeSH terms
Cognition Disorders, Decision Making, Neuropsychological Tests, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Databases, Bibliographic

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