The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Prefessionals
Abstract
One of the most challenging tasks facing clinicians today is the assessment of patients' capacities to consent to treatment. The protection of a patient's right to decide, as well as the protection of incompetent patients from the potential harm of the decisions they might make, rests largely on clinicians' abilities to judge patients' capacities to decide what treatment they will receive. Confusing laws and complex ethical questions surrounding competence to consent to treatment have made the process of competence assessment intimidating for many clinicians. Health professionals - physicians, medical students nad residents, nurses, and mental health practitioners - have long needed a consice guidebook that translates the issue for practice. This is what this book accomplishes. The aurthors describe the place of competence in the doctrine of informed consent and show how assessments of competence to consent to treatment can be structured by using a specific set of general medical and psychiatric treatment settings, explain how the assessment should be conducted, and offer a structured interview method to assist the task. They also explore the often difficult process of making the judgement about competence and desire what to do when patients' capacities are limited.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Most tests of competence to consent to medical treatment require that the person can “weigh” the information and “appreciate” consequences of their decision (7), yet the ability to do this may be impaired by the effects of mental disorder.”
From Medical Assistance in Dying: Challenges for Psychiatry (2018) · cites this paper as [7]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessment of Patients' Competence to Consent to Treatment
Appelbaum, P. S. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcp074045 · Cited by 1,427
Self-citationA Survey of Psychological Test Use Patterns Among Forensic Psychologists
Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_07 · Cited by 516
Assessing Decisional Capacity for Clinical Research or Treatment: A Review of Instruments
Dunn, L. B., Nowrangi, M. A., Palmer, B. W., Jeste, D. V., & Saks, E. R. (2006) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1323 · Cited by 464
Raymont, V., Bingley, W., Buchanan, A. W., David, A. S., Hayward, P., Wessely, S. C., & Hotopf, M. H. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17224-3 · Cited by 390
Assessment of Decision-Making Capacity in Older Adults: An Emerging Area of Practice and Research
Moye, J. A., & Marson, D. C. (2007) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/62.1.p3 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S.
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressNew York, NY
- Published
- 1998-02-12
- OpenAlex
- W4388066189
- Cited by
- 823
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 9.61
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- 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
- capacity to consent, informed consent, decision-making capacity, patient autonomy, competency assessment, structured interviews, psychiatric patients, medical patients, legal and ethical issues
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