Cited by 36Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Self-harm, capacity, and refusal of treatment: Implications for emergency medical practice. A prospective observational study

Open access
Jacob, R, Clare, I C H, Holland, A, Watson, P C, Maimaris, C, Gunn, M·2005·Emergency Medicine Journal

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In the context of increasing attention to the rights of adults to make treatment decisions for themselves, this study investigated, among patients who have engaged in self-harm (i) the extent of valid decision making; (ii) the impact of mental disorders; and (iii) the effect of systematically providing relevant clinical information. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: The emergency department of a large teaching hospital in southeast England. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy one adult men and women who had presented for treatment following self-harm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Semi-structured interviews were used to make clinical judgements about participants' capacity to consent before, and following, the presentation of simple written information about the proposed treatment(s). Demographic data, and data about mental disorder and alcohol misuse, were also collected. RESULTS: Based on accepted legal criteria, only 28/71 (39.4%) of the patients were judged to have capacity to consent to the proposed intervention(s) initially. However, the number of patients judged to have capacity improved significantly (p<0.001) after the presentation of written information, to 45/71 (63.4%). Those judged incapable were significantly more likely (p<0.01) to refuse treatment. Continuing incapacity was significantly associated only with cognitive impairment (p<0.001) and/or severe psychiatric disturbance (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with current views, capacity is not static, even among patients who have engaged in self-harm, but can be improved through a simple intervention. The findings are consistent with recent guidance about supporting this vulnerable group of patients, many of whom are ambivalent about treatment.

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 · 10.1136/emj.2004.018671

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Based on Cook's distance, there was only one potentially influential case, in the MMSE analysis (Jacob et al., 2005).

    “Based on Cook's distance, there was only one potentially influential case, in the MMSE analysis (Jacob et al., 2005).”

    From Decision making capacity for treatment in psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Jacob et al., 2005

    The Data analysis section lists McNemar’s, chi-square or Fisher’s exact, and Mann–Whitney tests, but does not report a Cook’s-distance assessment. The MMSE results in Table 1 do not identify an influential case. Searches for Cook’s distance and influential observations found no passage supporting the claimed count. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Grisso T. Evaluating Competencies, 2nd edn., New York: Plenum Press 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacob, R., Clare, I. C. H., Holland, A., Watson, P. C., Maimaris, C., & Gunn, M.
Affiliations
  • Fulbourn Hospital (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB)
  • Nottingham Trent University (GB)
Corresponding author
Holland, A
Venue
Emergency Medicine Journal
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-10-21
Volume
22
Issue
11
Pages
799-802
ISSN
  • 1351-0622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-0205
  • 1472-0213
OpenAlex
W2088644448
Cited by
36
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Emergency Medicine Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University 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
self-harm, decision-making capacity, treatment refusal, informed consent, emergency department, mental illness, cognitive impairment, psychiatric disturbances, written information, patient autonomy, alcohol abuse
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Mental Disorders, Decision Making, Emergency Service, Hospital, Emergency Treatment, Female, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Male, Medical Audit, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Treatment Refusal, Self-Injurious Behavior, 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