AIMS: To evaluate treatment decision-making capacity (DMC) to consent to psychiatric treatment in involuntarily committed patients and to further investigate possible associations with clinical and socio-demographic characteristics of patients. METHODS: 131 involuntarily hospitalised patients were recruited in three university hospitals. Mental capacity to consent to treatment was measured with the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T); psychiatric symptoms severity (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, BPRS-E) and cognitive functioning (Mini Mental State Examination, MMSE) were also assessed. RESULTS: Mental capacity ratings for the 131 involuntarily hospitalised patients showed that patients affected by bipolar disorders (BD) scored generally better than those affected by schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) in MacCAT-T appreciation (p < 0.05) and reasoning (p < 0.01). Positive symptoms were associated with poorer capacity to appreciate (r = -0.24; p < 0.01) and reason (r = -0.27; p < 0.01) about one's own treatment. Negative symptoms were associated with poorer understanding of treatment (r = -0.23; p < 0.01). Poorer cognitive functioning, as measured by MMSE, negatively affected MacCAT-T understanding in patients affected by SSD, but not in those affected by BD (SSD r = 0.37; p < 0.01; BD r = -0.01; p = 0.9). Poorer MacCAT-T reasoning was associated with more manic symptoms in the BD group of patients but not in the SSD group (BD r = -0.32; p < 0.05; SSD r = 0.03; p = 0.8). Twenty-two per cent (n = 29) of the 131 recruited patients showed high treatment DMC as defined by having scored higher than 75% of understanding, appreciating and reasoning MacCAT-T subscales maximum sores and 2 at expressing a choice. The remaining involuntarily hospitalised patients where considered to have low treatment DMC. Chi-squared disclosed that 32% of BD patients had high treatment DMC compared with 9% of SSD patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment DMC can be routinely assessed in non-consensual psychiatric settings by the MacCAT-T, as is the case of other clinical variables. Such approach can lead to the identification of patients with high treatment DMC, thus drawing attention to possible dichotomy between legal and clinical status.

Treatment decision-making capacity in non-consensual psychiatric treatment: a multicentre study / Mandarelli, Gabriele; F., Carabellese; Parmigiani, Giovanna; F., Bernardini; L., Pauselli; R., Quartesan; R., Catanesi; Ferracuti, Stefano. - In: EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRIC SCIENCES. - ISSN 2045-7960. - STAMPA. - 27:5(2018), pp. 492-499. [10.1017/S2045796017000063]

Treatment decision-making capacity in non-consensual psychiatric treatment: a multicentre study

MANDARELLI, GABRIELE;PARMIGIANI, GIOVANNA;FERRACUTI, Stefano
2018

Abstract

AIMS: To evaluate treatment decision-making capacity (DMC) to consent to psychiatric treatment in involuntarily committed patients and to further investigate possible associations with clinical and socio-demographic characteristics of patients. METHODS: 131 involuntarily hospitalised patients were recruited in three university hospitals. Mental capacity to consent to treatment was measured with the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T); psychiatric symptoms severity (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, BPRS-E) and cognitive functioning (Mini Mental State Examination, MMSE) were also assessed. RESULTS: Mental capacity ratings for the 131 involuntarily hospitalised patients showed that patients affected by bipolar disorders (BD) scored generally better than those affected by schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) in MacCAT-T appreciation (p < 0.05) and reasoning (p < 0.01). Positive symptoms were associated with poorer capacity to appreciate (r = -0.24; p < 0.01) and reason (r = -0.27; p < 0.01) about one's own treatment. Negative symptoms were associated with poorer understanding of treatment (r = -0.23; p < 0.01). Poorer cognitive functioning, as measured by MMSE, negatively affected MacCAT-T understanding in patients affected by SSD, but not in those affected by BD (SSD r = 0.37; p < 0.01; BD r = -0.01; p = 0.9). Poorer MacCAT-T reasoning was associated with more manic symptoms in the BD group of patients but not in the SSD group (BD r = -0.32; p < 0.05; SSD r = 0.03; p = 0.8). Twenty-two per cent (n = 29) of the 131 recruited patients showed high treatment DMC as defined by having scored higher than 75% of understanding, appreciating and reasoning MacCAT-T subscales maximum sores and 2 at expressing a choice. The remaining involuntarily hospitalised patients where considered to have low treatment DMC. Chi-squared disclosed that 32% of BD patients had high treatment DMC compared with 9% of SSD patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment DMC can be routinely assessed in non-consensual psychiatric settings by the MacCAT-T, as is the case of other clinical variables. Such approach can lead to the identification of patients with high treatment DMC, thus drawing attention to possible dichotomy between legal and clinical status.
2018
informed consent; involuntary hospitalisation; mental capacity; severe mental illness
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Treatment decision-making capacity in non-consensual psychiatric treatment: a multicentre study / Mandarelli, Gabriele; F., Carabellese; Parmigiani, Giovanna; F., Bernardini; L., Pauselli; R., Quartesan; R., Catanesi; Ferracuti, Stefano. - In: EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRIC SCIENCES. - ISSN 2045-7960. - STAMPA. - 27:5(2018), pp. 492-499. [10.1017/S2045796017000063]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Mandarelli_treatment-decision-making_2018.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Note: pdf
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 147.48 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
147.48 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/961911
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 13
  • Scopus 46
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 34
social impact