Morán-Sánchez Inés, Luna Aurelio, Pérez-Cárceles Maria D
Mental Health Centre, Health Service of Murcia, 30201, Cartagena, Murcia, Spain.
Department of Legal and Forensic Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute (IMIB), Regional Campus of International Excellence "Campus Mare Nostrum", Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Psychiatr Q. 2016 Mar;87(1):89-105. doi: 10.1007/s11126-015-9365-3.
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.
在精神科环境中,心理能力是一个新兴的伦理法律概念,但其与临床参数的关系仍不确定。本研究的目的是评估同意研究的能力与不同精神障碍之间的关联,并在一项横断面研究中确定各诊断组研究决策能力受损的预测因素。对139名连续转诊的门诊患者进行了访谈,这些患者被诊断为患有DSM-IV-TR标准的精神病性障碍、心境障碍和焦虑障碍,并根据麦克阿瑟同意研究能力评估工具(MacCAT-CR)做出了无行为能力的二元判断。通过病例记录评估人口统计学和临床信息。焦虑症患者在MacCAT-CR上表现最佳,精神病性障碍患者表现最差,然而,每组内部存在相当大的异质性。认知障碍和整体功能与MacCAT-CR分量表得分密切相关。30.6%的参与者缺乏与研究相关的决策能力。理解得分低(比值比0.07,95%置信区间0.01 - 0.32)和推理得分低(比值比0.30,95%置信区间0.11 - 0.82)是与无行为能力最密切相关的因素。不能仅仅因为诊断就对决策能力做出绝对判断。我们发现了几个风险因素,可用于决定哪些人群可能需要更全面的能力评估。本研究中所考虑的问题绝非精神疾病患者所独有。忽视这一警告,可能会进一步导致对严重精神疾病患者的不当污名化。