Cited by 263Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareHealth, Medicine and Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mental capacity in psychiatric patients: Systematic review

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mental capacity is central to legal and ethical debates on the use of compulsion in psychiatry. AIMS: To describe the clinical epidemiology of mental incapacity in patients with psychiatric disorders, including interrater reliability of assessments, frequency in the psychiatric population and associations of mental incapacity. METHOD: Cross-sectional studies of capacity to consent to treatment for psychiatric patients were systematically reviewed from Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo databases. Information on the reliability of assessments, frequency and associations of mental incapacity was extracted. RESULTS: Out of 37 papers reviewed, 29 different capacity assessment tools were identified. Studies were highly heterogeneous in their measurement and definitions of capacity. Interrater reliabilities between tools were high. Studies indicate incapacity is common (median 29%) but the majority of psychiatric in-patients are capable of making treatment decisions. Psychosis, severity of symptoms, involuntary admission and treatment refusal were the strongest risk factors for incapacity. CONCLUSIONS: Mental capacity can be reliably assessed. The majority of psychiatric in-patients have capacity, and socio-demographic variables do not have a major impact but clinical ones do.

Overview

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.035162

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 57 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 2005, EHRR, 40, 32
  2. Schneider, 1998, The Practice of Autonomy
  3. Norko, 1990, A clinical study of competency to consent to voluntary psychiatric hospitalization, American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 11, 3

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–263 of 263

Metadata

Authors
Okai, D., Owen, G., McGuire, H., Singh, S., Churchill, R., & Hotopf, M.
Affiliations
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Hotopf, Matthew
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2007-10
Volume
191
Issue
4
Pages
291-297
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2157242561
Cited by
262
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
decision-making capacity, psychiatric patients, capacity assessment, inter-rater reliability, treatment refusal, involuntary admission, psychosis, symptom severity, psychiatric inpatients, clinical epidemiology
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Decision Making, Hospitalization, Humans, Informed Consent, Interview, Psychological, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Bibliographic, Mental Competency, Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Mentally Ill Persons

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