↓ Skip to main content

Testing decision-making competency of schizophrenia participants in clinical trials. A meta-analysis and meta-regression

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Testing decision-making competency of schizophrenia participants in clinical trials. A meta-analysis and meta-regression
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1580-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sorin Hostiuc, Mugurel Constantin Rusu, Ionut Negoi, Eduard Drima

Abstract

The process of assessing the decision-making capacity of potential subjects before their inclusion in clinical trials is a legal requirement and a moral obligation, as it is essential for respecting their autonomy. This issue is especially important in psychiatry patients (such as those diagnosed with schizophrenia). The primary purpose of this article was to evaluate the degree of impairment in each dimension of decision-making capacity in schizophrenia patients compared to non-mentally-ill controls, as quantified by the (MacCAT-CR) instrument. Secondary objectives were (1) to see whether enhanced consent forms are associated with a significant increase in decision-making capacity in schizophrenia patients, and (2) if decision-making capacity in schizophrenia subjects is dependent on the age, gender, or the inpatient status of the subjects. We systematically reviewed the results obtained from three databases: ISI Web of Science, Pubmed, Scopus. Each database was scrutinised using the following keywords: "MacCAT-CR + schizophrenia", "decision-making capacity + schizophrenia", and "informed consent + schizophrenia." We included 13 studies in the analysis. The effect size between the schizophrenia and the control group was significant, with a difference in means of -4.43 (-5.76; -3.1, p < 0.001) for understanding, -1.17 (-1.49, -0.84, p < 0.001) for appreciation, -1.29 (-1.79, -0.79, p < 0.001) for reasoning, and -0.05 (-0.9, -0.01, p = 0.022) for expressing a choice. Even if schizophrenia patients have a significantly decreased decision-making capacity compared to non-mentally-ill controls, they should be considered as competent unless very severe changes are identifiable during clinical examination. Enhanced informed consent forms decrease the differences between schizophrenia patients and non-mentally-ill controls (except for the reasoning dimension) and should be used whenever the investigators want to include more ill patients in their clinical trials. Increased age, men gender and an increased percentage of inpatients might increase the differential of decision-making incompetence compared to non-mentally-ill subjects in various dimensions of the decision-making competence as analysed by the MacCAT-CR scale, but the small number of subjects did not allow us (except for one instance) to reach statistical significance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 18%
Psychology 14 17%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 28 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,753,078
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,073
of 5,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,186
of 451,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#25
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.