Palmer Barton W, Dunn Laura B, Appelbaum Paul S, Mudaliar Sunder, Thal Leon, Henry Robert, Golshan Shahrokh, Jeste Dilip V
Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Jul;62(7):726-33. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.7.726.
Considerable discussion surrounds issues related to the capacities of neuropsychiatric patients to consent to research, yet few empirical investigations have directly compared decisional capacity among patients with a serious mental illness with that among patients with neurologic or medical conditions. Also, as requirements for formal assessment of decisional capacity are becoming more common, there is a clear need to identify efficient screening methods.
To compare decisional capacity among 3 diagnostic groups, and to examine the degree to which impaired understanding can be detected with a brief set of screening questions.
Outpatient veterans hospital clinic and university-based neuropsychiatric research centers. DESIGN/ PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional comparison of decisional capacity among older (>/=60 years) outpatients with schizophrenia (n = 35), mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (n = 30), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 36), and determination of sensitivity and specificity of a screening measure.
Three-item decisional capacity questionnaire and the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research.
Patients with diabetes mellitus performed the best on the capacity instruments, patients with Alzheimer disease had the worst performance, and patients with schizophrenia were intermediate. However, there was considerable heterogeneity within each group. Even within diagnostic groups, the level of cognitive functioning (measured with the Mini-Mental State Examination) was generally the best predictor of decisional capacity (particularly in the understanding component). The 3-item questionnaire was sensitive to impaired understanding as measured with the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research understanding subscale.
Decisional capacity differed among the 3 groups; there was considerable heterogeneity even within each diagnostic group, so individualized consideration of capacity may be warranted. The level of cognitive deficits is 1 potential marker of which participants should receive comprehensive capacity evaluations, but sensitive brief questionnaires targeting key aspects of disclosed information may also provide an effective means of screening for participants warranting comprehensive capacity evaluations.
围绕神经精神疾病患者同意参与研究的能力相关问题存在大量讨论,但很少有实证研究直接比较严重精神疾病患者与神经或躯体疾病患者的决策能力。此外,随着对决策能力进行正式评估的要求越来越普遍,显然需要确定有效的筛查方法。
比较三个诊断组的决策能力,并研究通过一组简短的筛查问题能够检测出理解受损程度的情况。
门诊退伍军人医院诊所和大学神经精神研究中心。
设计/参与者:对年龄较大(≥60岁)的精神分裂症门诊患者(n = 35)、轻度至中度阿尔茨海默病患者(n = 30)和2型糖尿病患者(n = 36)的决策能力进行横断面比较,并确定一种筛查措施的敏感性和特异性。
三项决策能力问卷和麦克阿瑟临床研究能力评估工具。
糖尿病患者在能力测试工具上表现最佳,阿尔茨海默病患者表现最差,精神分裂症患者处于中间水平。然而,每组内部存在相当大的异质性。即使在诊断组内,认知功能水平(用简易精神状态检查表测量)通常也是决策能力的最佳预测指标(特别是在理解部分)。三项问卷对用麦克阿瑟临床研究能力评估工具理解分量表测量的理解受损情况很敏感。
三个组的决策能力不同;即使在每个诊断组内也存在相当大的异质性,因此可能需要对能力进行个体化考虑。认知缺陷水平是一个潜在指标,据此可确定哪些参与者应接受全面的能力评估,但针对所披露信息关键方面的敏感简短问卷也可能提供一种有效的筛查方法,以确定哪些参与者需要进行全面的能力评估。