↓ Skip to main content

Decision-making capacity for research participation among addicted people: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Decision-making capacity for research participation among addicted people: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0086-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inés Morán-Sánchez, Aurelio Luna, Maria Sánchez-Muñoz, Beatriz Aguilera-Alcaraz, Maria D. Pérez-Cárceles

Abstract

Informed consent is a key element of ethical clinical research. Addicted population may be at risk for impaired consent capacity. However, very little research has focused on their comprehension of consent forms. The aim of this study is to assess the capacity of addicted individuals to provide consent to research. 53 subjects with DSM-5 diagnoses of a Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and 50 non psychiatric comparison subjects (NPCs) participated in the survey from December 2014 to March 2015. This cross-sectional study was carried out at a community-based Outpatient Treatment Center and at an urban-located Health Centre in Spain. A binary judgment of capacity/incapacity was made guided by the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) and a clinical interview. Demographics and clinical characteristics were assessed by cases notes and the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Global Assessment Functional Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. NPCs performed the best on the MacCAT-CR, and patients with SUD had the worst performance, particularly on the Understanding and Appreciation subscales. 32.7 % SUD people lacked research-related decisional capacity. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of capacity to consent to research. The findings of our study provide evidence that a large proportion of individuals with SUD had decisional capacity for consent to research. It is therefore inappropriate to draw conclusions about capacity to make research decisions on the basis of a SUD diagnosis. In the absence of advanced cognitive impairment, acute withdrawal or intoxication, we should assume that addicted persons possess decision-making capacity. Thus, the view that people with SUD would ipso facto lose decision-making power for research consent is flawed and stigmatizing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 22%
Psychology 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2019.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#774
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,949
of 398,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 398,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.