Cited by 21Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Conceptions of decision-making capacity in psychiatry: interviews with Swedish psychiatrists

Open access
Sjöstrand, Manne, Karlsson, Petter, Sandman, Lars, Helgesson, Gert, Eriksson, Stefan, Juth, Niklas·2015·BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Decision-making capacity is a key concept in contemporary healthcare ethics. Previous research has mainly focused on philosophical, conceptual issues or on evaluation of different tools for assessing patients' capacity. The aim of the present study is to investigate how the concept and its normative role are understood in Swedish psychiatric care. Of special interest for present purposes are the relationships between decisional capacity and psychiatric disorders and between health law and practical ethics. METHODS: Eight in-depth interviews were conducted with Swedish psychiatrists. The interviews were analysed according to descriptive qualitative content analysis in which categories and sub-categories were distilled from the material. RESULTS: Decision-making capacity was seen as dependent on understanding, insight, evaluation, reasoning, and abilities related to making and communicating a choice. However, also the actual content of the decision was held as relevant. There was an ambivalence regarding the relationship between psychiatric disorders and capacity and a tendency to regard psychiatric patients who made unwise treatment decisions as decisionally incapable. However, in cases relating to patients with somatic illnesses, the assumption was rather that patients who made unwise decisions were imprudent but yet decisionally capable. CONCLUSIONS: The respondents' conceptions of decision-making capacity were mainly in line with standard theories. However, the idea that capacity also includes aspects relating to the content of the decision clearly deviates from the standard view. The tendency to regard imprudent choices by psychiatric patients as betokening lack of decision-making capacity differs from the view taken of such choices in somatic care. This difference merits further investigations.

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/s12910-015-0026-8

Cites

30 of 30 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 study by Sjöstrand et al. (2015) found that professionals who perceived patients as making unwise treatment decisions were more likely to judge them incapable of decision-making.

    “A study by Sjöstrand et al. (2015) found that professionals who perceived patients as making unwise treatment decisions were more likely to judge them incapable of decision-making [177].”

    From Factors Associated with Perceived Coercion in Adults Receiving Psychiatric Care: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [177]

    The Abstract (Results) and Discussion ('A difference between somatic and psychiatric patients?') report that interviewed Swedish psychiatrists tended to judge psychiatric patients who made unwise treatment decisions as lacking capacity. The claim broadens this finding to professionals and patients generally; the paper says the presumption was not made for patients in somatic care. (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

3 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Tännsjö T. Coercive care: the ethics of choice in health and medicine. London; New York: Routledge; 1999.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sjöstrand, M., Karlsson, P., Sandman, L., Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S., & Juth, N.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Sjöstrand, Manne
Venue
BMC Medical Ethics
Published
2015-05-21
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
34-34
ISSN
1472-6939 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119612725
Cited by
20
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2014‐4024)
  • Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd (2014–4024)
  • Svenska Läkaresällskapet
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, health law, applied ethics, imprudence, psychiatric nursing
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Mental Disorders, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Psychiatry, Sweden, Mental Competency, Qualitative Research

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