Cited by 38Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics in Clinical Research

The relationship between executive functions and capacity to consent to treatment in acute psychiatric hospitalization

Open access
Mandarelli, Gabriele, Parmigiani, Giovanna, Tarsitani, Lorenzo, Frati, Paola, Biondi, Massimo, Ferracuti, Stefano·2012·Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Abstract

Despite the acknowledged influence of cognition on patients' capacity to consent to treatment, the specific neuropsychological domains involved remain elusive, as does the role of executive functions. We investigated possible associations between executive functions and decisional capacity in a sample of acute psychiatric inpatients. Patients were recruited and evaluated through the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), the 24-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Patients with poor executive functioning performed worse in MacCAT understanding, appreciation, and expression of a choice, compared with good performers. These findings point to the importance of cognition in decisional capacity processes. In addition, the strong association found between learning abilities and informed consent decision-making provide empirical evidence indicating possible cognitive enhancement strategies that may improve psychiatric patients' competency.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.63

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mandarelli, G., Parmigiani, G., Tarsitani, L., Frati, P., Biondi, M., & Ferracuti, S.
Affiliations
Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
Corresponding author
Mandarelli, Gabriele
Venue
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
Published
2012-12
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
63-70
ISSN
  • 1556-2646 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-2654
OpenAlex
W2168851930
Cited by
38
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
executive function, decision-making capacity, informed consent, consent to treatment, acute psychiatric inpatients, cognitive impairment, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, learning ability, neuropsychological assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Cognition, Decision Making, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Informed Consent, Learning Disabilities, Male, Middle Aged, Mental Competency, Comprehension, Executive Function

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