Systematic review on the prevalence of lack of capacity in medical and psychiatric settings
Open accessAbstract
Recent court cases in England and Wales have refocused attention on patients' decision-making capacity to consent. Little is known about the prevalence of incapacity across specialities but decision-making capacity is likely to be overestimated by clinicians. The aim of this systematic review is to estimate the prevalence of incapacity to consent to treatment or admission in different medical and psychiatric settings, and compare the two. We conducted an electronic search following PRISMA principles and included 35 studies in psychiatric and 23 studies in medical settings. The 58 included studies revealed 70 data sets across all settings. For psychiatric settings the weighted average proportion of patients with incapacity was 45% (95% confidence interval (CI) 39-51%). For medical settings, the weighted average proportion of patients with incapacity was 34% (95% CI 25-44%). The two groups are not significantly different from each other in terms of the proportion of incapacity (p=0.92). A considerable number of medical and psychiatric patients lack capacity to make treatment and assessment decisions. Clinicians should be more alert to the possibility that their patients may lack decision-making capacity. Assessment of capacity should be frequent using the appropriate legal frameworks to act in the best interest of patients.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Recent studies of capacity in psychiatric patients have reported mixed results.
“Recent studies have analyzed capacity in psychiatric patients, with mixed results.”
From Decision making capacity for treatment in psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Lepping et al., 2015
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 61 · Cited by 110
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Palmer BW, Nayak GV, Dunn LB et al. Treatment related decision making capacity in middle aged and older patients with psychosis. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002;10:207-11.
- Norko MA, Billick SB, McCarrick RG. A clinical study of compe- tency to consent to voluntary psychiatric hospitalization. Am J Forensic Psychiatry 1990;11:3-15.
- Gilman RB, Billick SB. Assessing capacity instruments in inpatient legal proceeding. Am J Forensic Psychiatry 2003;24:45-52.
- Morris CD, Niederbuhl JM, Mahr JM. Determining the capability of individuals with mental retardation to give informed consent. Am J Ment Retard 1993;98:263-72.
- Authors
- Lepping, P., Stanly, T., & Turner, J.
- Affiliations
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (GB)
- Venue
- Clinical Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 337-343
- ISSN
- 1470-2118 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4952795
- OpenAlex
- W2204104926
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- decision-making capacity, psychiatric patients, medical patients, consent to treatment, capacity assessment
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Decision Making, England, Humans, Informed Consent, Wales, Prevalence, 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