Treatment Decision-Making Capacity in Forensic vs Non-forensic Psychiatric Patients: A European Comparison

Author:

Marazia Chantal1ORCID,Rucci Paola2,Fangerau Heiner1,Voßberg Dilara1,Rolfes Vasilija1,Iozzino Laura3,Iommi Marica2,Gosek Pawel4,Heitzman Janusz4,Ferrari Clarissa5,Macis Ambra5,Markiewicz Inga4,Picchioni Marco67,Salize Hans Joachim8,Stompe Thomas9,Wancata Johannes9,Appelbaum Paul S10,de Girolamo Giovanni3

Affiliation:

1. Department of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University of Düsseldorf , Düsseldorf , Germany

2. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna , Bologna , Italy

3. Unit of Epidemiological Psychiatry and Evaluation, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli , Brescia , Italy

4. Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology , Warsaw , Poland

5. Unit of Statistics, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli , Brescia , Italy

6. Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Science, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London , London , UK

7. St Magnus Hospital , Haslemere , UK

8. Central Institute of Mental Health Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University , Heidelberg , Germany

9. Clinical Division of Social Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna , Vienna , Austria

10. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons , New York, NY , USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundConsent to treatment is a cornerstone of medical ethics and law. Nevertheless, very little empirical evidence is available to inform clinicians and policymakers regarding the capacities of forensic patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) to make decisions about their treatment, with the risk of clinical and legal inertia, silent coercion, stigmatization, or ill-conceived reforms.Study DesignIn this multinational study, we assessed and compared with treatment-related decisional capacities in forensic and non-forensic patients with SSD. 160 forensic and 139 non-forensic patients were used in Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, and England. Their capacity to consent to treatment was assessed by means of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T). Multiple generalized linear regression models were used to identify the socio-demographic and clinical variables associated with MacCAT-T scores.Study ResultsIn total, 55 forensic (34.4%) and 58 non-forensic patients (41.7%) showed high treatment-related decisional capacity, defined as scoring ≥75% of the maximum scores for the understanding, appreciation and reasoning, and 2 for expressing a choice. Forensic patients showed differences in their capacity to consent to treatment across countries. Of all socio-demographic and clinical variables, only “social support” was directly relevant to policy.ConclusionsForensic patients have treatment-related decisional capacities comparable with their non-forensic counterparts. Social contacts might provide a substantial contribution towards enhancing the decisional autonomy of both forensic and non-forensic patients, hence improving the overall quality and legitimacy of mental health care.

Funder

European Commission

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health

Reference47 articles.

1. Mental capacity in psychiatric patients: systematic review;Okai;Br J Psychiatry.,2007

2. Systematic review on the prevalence of lack of capacity in medical and psychiatric settings. Response;Lepping;Clin Med (Lond).,2016

3. Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors that help or hinder treatment decision-making capacity in psychosis;Larkin;Br J Psychiatry.,2017

4. The capacity to consent to treatment and research: a review of standardized assessment tools;Sturman;Clin Psychol Rev.,2005

5. Magnitude of impairment in decisional capacity in people with schizophrenia compared to normal subjects: an overview;Jeste;Schizophr Bull.,2006

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Forensic psychiatry in Turkiye;International Review of Psychiatry;2023-09-12

2. How person-centred care can be provided in forensic mental health;British Journal of Nursing;2023-08-17

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3