Cited by 89Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

A meta-review of literature reviews assessing the capacity of patients with severe mental disorders to make decisions about their healthcare

Open access
Calcedo-Barba, A., Fructuoso, A., Martinez-Raga, J., Paz, S., Sánchez de Carmona, M., Vicens, E.·2020·BMC Psychiatry

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Determining the mental capacity of psychiatric patients for making healthcare related decisions is crucial in clinical practice. This meta-review of review articles comprehensively examines the current evidence on the capacity of patients with a mental illness to make medical care decisions. Methods: Systematic review of review articles following PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycInfo were electronically searched up to 31 January 2020. Free text searches and medical subject headings were combined to identify literature reviews and meta-analyses published in English, and summarising studies on the capacity of patients with serious mental illnesses to make healthcare and treatment related decisions, conducted in any clinical setting and with a quantitative synthesis of results. Publications were selected as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The AMSTAR II tool was used to assess the quality of reviews. Results: Eleven publications were reviewed. Variability on methods across studies makes it difficult to precisely estimate the prevalence of decision-making capacity in patients with mental disorders. Nonetheless, up to three-quarters of psychiatric patients, including individuals with serious illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder may have capacity to make medical decisions in the context of their illness. Most evidence comes from studies conducted in the hospital setting; much less information exists on the healthcare decision making capacity of mental disorder patients while in the community. Stable psychiatric and non-psychiatric patients may have a similar capacity to make healthcare related decisions. Patients with a mental illness have capacity to judge risk-reward situations and to adequately decide about the important treatment outcomes. Different symptoms may impair different domains of the decisional capacity of psychotic patients. Decisional capacity impairments in psychotic patients are temporal, identifiable, and responsive to interventions directed towards simplifying information, encouraging training and shared decision making. The publications complied satisfactorily with the AMSTAR II critical domains. Conclusions: Whilst impairments in decision-making capacity may exist, most patients with a severe mental disorder, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are able to make rational decisions about their healthcare. Best practice strategies should incorporate interventions to help mentally ill patients grow into the voluntary and safe use of medications.

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 · 10.1186/s12888-020-02756-0

Cites

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 89

Authors
Calcedo-Barba, A., Fructuoso, A., Martinez-Raga, J., Paz, S., Sánchez de Carmona, M., & Vicens, E.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
  • Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu (ES)
ORCID
Paz, S.
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2020-06-30
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
339-339
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3039652712
Cited by
89
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Repository of Digital Objects for Teaching Research and Culture (University of Valencia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
decision-making capacity, severe mental illness, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, healthcare decision-making, shared decision-making, psychotic symptoms, medication adherence
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Bipolar Disorder, Decision Making, Humans, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Self Care, Mental Competency, Mentally Ill Persons, Persons with Psychiatric Disorders

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