Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Research Among Psychiatric Outpatients: Prevalence and Associated Factors

被引:0
作者
Inés Morán-Sánchez
Aurelio Luna
Maria D. Pérez-Cárceles
机构
[1] Health Service of Murcia,Mental Health Centre
[2] University of Murcia,Department of Legal and Forensic Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute (IMIB), Regional Campus of International Excellence “Campus Mare Nostrum”, Faculty of Medicine
来源
Psychiatric Quarterly | 2016年 / 87卷
关键词
Research ethics; Decision making; Mental capacity; Informed consent; Mental disorders; Clinical judgment;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Mental capacity is an emerging ethical legal concept in psychiatric settings but its relation to clinical parameters remains yet uncertain. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between capacity to consent research and different psychiatric disorders and to characterize predictors of impairments in research decision-making capacity across diagnostic groups in a cross-sectional study. 139 consecutively referred outpatients with DSM-IV TR diagnoses of psychotic, mood and anxiety disorders were interviewed and a binary judgment of incapacity was made guided by the MacArthur competence assessment tool for consent research (MacCAT-CR). Demographics and clinical information were assessed by cases notes. Patients with anxiety disorders performed the best on the MacCAT-CR, and patients with psychotic disorders had the worst performance, however, there was considerable heterogeneity within each group. Cognitive impairment and global functioning were strongly correlated with MacCAT-CR subscales scores. 30.6 % participants lacked research-related decisional capacity. Low Understanding score OR 0.07 (IC 95 % 0.01–0.32) and Low Reasoning score OR 0.30 (IC 95 % 0.11–0.82) were the factors most closely associated with lack of capacity. No absolute statements about decisional capacity can be driven merely due to the diagnosis. We found several risk factors which may be considered to decide which populations may require more thorough capacity assessments. The issues under consideration in the present study are by no means unique to people with psychiatric conditions. Ignoring this caveat, risks further inappropriate stigmatization of those with serious mental illness.
引用
收藏
页码:89 / 105
页数:16
相关论文
共 114 条
  • [1] Dunn LB(2005)Emerging findings in ethics of schizophrenia research Curr Opin Psychiatry 18 111-119
  • [2] Roberts LW(2014)A learning activity to introduce undergraduate students to bioethics in human clinical research J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 9 56-63
  • [3] Segarra I(2011)How to enroll participants in research ethically JAMA 305 1587-1588
  • [4] Gómez M(2007)Elderly patients also have rights Journal of Medical Ethics 33 712-716
  • [5] Wendler D(2006)Magnitude of impairment in decisional capacity in people with schizophrenia compared to normal subjects: an overview Schizophrenia Bulletin 32 121-128
  • [6] Pérez-Cárceles MD(2012)Unreasonable reasons: normative judgements in the assessment of mental capacity J Eval Clin Pract 18 1038-1044
  • [7] Lorenzo MD(1993)Do psychiatric patients need greater protection than medical patients when they consent to treatment? Psychiatric Quarterly 64 319-329
  • [8] Luna A(1999)Competency to consent to treatment Psychiatric Quarterly 70 303-311
  • [9] Osuna E(2014)A new measure of research participant burden: brief report J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 9 46-49
  • [10] Jeste DV(2002)Alzheimer’s Disease Patients’ and Caregivers’ Capacity, Competency, and Reasons to Enroll in an Early-Phase Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 50 2019-2024