Capacity to consent to treatment in psychiatry inpatients - a systematic review
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental capacity for treatment decisions in psychiatry inpatients is an important ethical and legal concern, especially in light of changes in mental capacity legislation in many jurisdictions. AIMS: To conduct a systematic review of literature examining the prevalence of mental capacity for treatment decisions among voluntary and involuntary psychiatry inpatients, and to assess any correlations between research tools used to measure mental capacity and binary judgements using criteria such as those in capacity legislation. METHOD: We searched PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies assessing mental capacity for treatment decisions in people admitted voluntarily and involuntarily to psychiatric hospitals. RESULTS: Forty-five papers emanating from 33 studies were identified. There was huge variability in study methods and often selective populations, but the prevalence of decision-making capacity varied between 5% and 83.7%. These figures resulted from studies using cut-off scores or categorical criteria only. The prevalence of decision-making capacity among involuntary patients ranged from 7.7% to 42%, and among voluntary patients ranged from 29% to 97.9%. Two papers showed positive correlations between clinicians' judgement of decision-making capacity and scores on the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment; two papers showed no such correlation. CONCLUSIONS: Not all voluntary psychiatry inpatients possess mental capacity and many involuntary patients do. This paradox needs to be clarified and resolved in mental health legislation; supported decision-making can help with this task.Key PointsLegislative changes for mental capacity are taking place in many jurisdictions.This is an important human rights issue for many people, including psychiatry inpatients.In our review, we found the prevalence of decision-making capacity varies between 5% and 83.7% in psychiatry inpatients.Not all voluntary inpatients have decision-making capacity.Many involuntary inpatients have mental capacity to make decisions.Supported decision-making can help those with impairments in their mental capacity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 Curley, Watson, & Kelly, 2021
The review by Curley et al. (2021) included psychiatric patients but did not conduct a meta-analysis.
“More recently, the review by (Curley et al., 2021) included psychiatric patients but did not conduct a meta-analysis.”
From Decision making capacity for treatment in psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Curley et al., 2021
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 27
- Authors
- Curley, A., Watson, C., & Kelly, B. D.
- Affiliations
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- Cavan Monaghan Mental Health Service, Monaghan, Ireland
- Corresponding author
- Curley, Aoife
- ORCID
- Kelly, Brendan D.
- Venue
- International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-12-23
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 303-315
- ISSN
- 1365-1501 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-1788
- OpenAlex
- W4200513464
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
- Keywords
- decision-making capacity, treatment decision-making, psychiatric inpatients, voluntary admission, involuntary admission, supported decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Decision Making, Humans, Informed Consent, Inpatients, Psychiatry, 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