Cited by 43Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsSchizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and Psychiatry

Diversity or disarray? A systematic review of decision-making capacity for treatment and research in schizophrenia and other non-affective psychoses

Open access
Spencer, B. W. J., Shields, G., Gergel, T., Hotopf, M., Owen, G. S.·2017·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Valid consent for treatment or research participation requires that an individual has decision-making capacity (DMC), which is the ability to make a specific decision. There is evidence that the psychopathology of schizophrenia can compromise DMC. The objective of this review was to examine the presence or absence of DMC in schizophrenia and the socio-demographic/psychopathological factors associated. METHODS: We searched three databases Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R), and PsycINFO for studies reporting data on the proportion of DMC for treatment and research (DMC-T and DMC-R), and/or socio-demographic/psychopathological associations with ability to make such decisions, in people with schizophrenia and related illnesses. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies were identified. While high levels of heterogeneity limited direct comparison, meta-analysis of inpatient data showed that DMC-T was present in 48% of people. Insight was strongly associated with DMC-T. Neurocognitive deficits were strongly associated with lack of DMC-R and to a lesser extent DMC-T. With the exception of years of education, there was no evidence for an association with socio-demographic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Insight and neurocognitive deficits are most closely associated with DMC in schizophrenia. The lack of an association with socio-demographic factors dispels common misperceptions regarding DMC and characteristics such as age. Although our results reveal a wide spectrum of DMC-T and DMC-R in schizophrenia, this could be partly due to the complexity of the DMC construct and the heterogeneity of existing studies. To facilitate systematic review research, there is a need for improvement within research study design and increased consistency of concepts and tools.

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 · 10.1017/s0033291717000502

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?

  • A recent meta-analysis by Spencer et al. (2017) focused on patients with schizophrenia and only reported proportions of people with capacity for treatment decisions.

    “A recent meta-analysis of four studies (Spencer et al., 2017) focused on patients with schizophrenia, and only reported on the proportions of people with capacity for treatment decisions.”

    From Decision making capacity for treatment in psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Spencer et al., 2017

    The Statistical analysis and DMC-T v. DMC-R in schizophrenia sections support the description of a meta-analysis pooling proportions with capacity for treatment decisions among schizophrenia inpatients. But “only reported” overstates the scope of the paper: the Diversity or disarray 1909 section also reports proportions with capacity for research decisions, and the Associations with DMC-R section reports other findings. The indexed passages do not explicitly establish the claimed four-study count. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Norko M, Billick SB, McCarrick RG, Schwartz MA (1990). A clinical study of competency to consent to voluntary psychiatric hospitalization. American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 11, 3-15.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spencer, B. W. J., Shields, G., Gergel, T., Hotopf, M., & Owen, G. S.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Spencer, B. W. J.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2017-04-26
Volume
47
Issue
11
Pages
1906-1922
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2594904649
Cited by
43
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0515-10102, DRF-2014-07-035)
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
decision-making capacity, schizophrenia, informed consent, research participation, treatment decision-making, insight, neurocognitive impairment, sociodemographic factors, hospitalized patients, conceptual heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Mental Competency

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