Emotion and Value in the Evaluation of Medical Decision-Making Capacity: A Narrative Review of Arguments

How clinical decision tasks modulate emotional related EEG responses in nursing students

Healthcare professionals play a vital role in conveying sensitive information as patients undergo stressful, demanding situations. However, the underlying neurocognitive dynamics in routine clinical tasks remain underexplored, creating gaps in healthcare research and social cognition models. Here, we examined whether the type of clinical task may differentially affect the emotional processing of nursing students in response to the emotional reactions of patients. In a within-subjects design, 40 nursing students read clinical cases prompting them to make procedural decisions or to respond to a patient with a proper communicative decision. Afterward, participants read sentences about patients' emotional states; some semantically consistent and others inconsistent along with filler sentences. EEG recordings toward critical words (emotional stimuli) were used to capture ERP indices of emotional salience (EPN), attentional engagement (LPP) and semantic integration (N400). Results showed that the procedural decision task elicited larger EPN amplitudes, reflecting pre-attentive categorization of emotional stimuli. The communicative decision task elicited larger LPP components associated with later elaborative processing. Additionally, the classical N400 effect elicited by semantically inconsistent sentences was found. The psychophysiological measures were tied by self-report measures indexing the difficulty of the task. These results suggest that the requirements of clinical tasks modulate emotional-related EEG responses.

Shame, health literacy and consent

This paper is particularly concerned with shame, sometimes considered the 'master emotion', and its possible role in affecting the consent process, specifically where that shame relates to the issue of diminished health literacy. We suggest that the absence of exploration of affective issues in general during the consent process is problematic, as emotions commonly impact upon our decision-making process. Experiencing shame in the healthcare environment can have a significant influence on choices related to health and healthcare, and may lead to discussions of possibilities and alternatives being closed off. In the case of impaired health literacy we suggest that it obstructs the narrowing of the epistemic gap between clinician and patient normally achieved through communication and information provision. Health literacy shame prevents acknowledgement of this barrier. The consequence is that it may render consent less effective than it otherwise might have been in protecting the person's autonomy. We propose that the absence of consideration of health literacy shame during the consent process diminishes the possibility of the patient exerting full control over their choices, and thus bodily integrity.

What it is like to be manic: a response to Director

In a recent article, Director makes the case that many individuals with bipolar disorder have the capacity to consent to many decisions while acutely manic, even when those decisions are out of character and cause harm. Referring to recent qualitative evidence, I argue that Director overlooks a key mechanism of manic incapacity, an inflexible experience of the future that impairs one's ability to value. Without attention to the illness-specific experience of decision-making, capacity assessments risk false negatives in people with mania.

Large language models as decision aids in neuro-oncology: a review of shared decision-making applications

Shared decision-making (SDM) is crucial in neuro-oncology, fostering collaborations between patients and healthcare professionals to navigate treatment options. However, the complexity of neuro-oncological conditions and the cognitive and emotional burdens on patients present significant barriers to achieving effective SDM. This discussion explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Bard to overcome these barriers, offering a means to enhance patient understanding and engagement in their care. LLMs, by providing accessible, personalized information, could support but not supplant the critical insights of healthcare professionals. The hypothesis suggests that patients, better informed through LLMs, may participate more actively in their treatment choices. Integrating LLMs into neuro-oncology requires navigating ethical considerations, including safeguarding patient data and ensuring informed consent, alongside the judicious use of AI technologies. Future efforts should focus on establishing ethical guidelines, adapting healthcare workflows, promoting patient-oriented research, and developing training programs for clinicians on the use of LLMs. Continuous evaluation of LLM applications will be vital to maintain their effectiveness and alignment with patient needs. Ultimately, this exploration contends that the thoughtful integration of LLMs into SDM processes could significantly enhance patient involvement and strengthen the patient-physician relationship in neuro-oncology care.

Risk-Sensitive Assessment of Decision-Making Capacity: A Comprehensive Defense

Should the assessment of decision-making capacity (DMC) be risk sensitive, that is, should the threshold for DMC vary with risk? The debate over this question is now nearly five decades old. To many, the idea that DMC assessments should be risk sensitive is intuitive and commonsense. To others, the idea is paternalistic or incoherent, or both; they argue that the riskiness of a given decision should increase the epistemic scrutiny in the evaluation of DMC, not increase the threshold for DMC. We respond to the critics' main concerns by providing a comprehensive account of how risk-sensitive DMC is coherent, avoids paternalism, and best fulfills the epistemic goal of DMC evaluations.

Rapid-Response Treatments for Depression and Requests for Physician-Assisted Death: An Ethical Analysis

Depression is common at the end of life, and there is longstanding concern that it may affect terminally ill patients' decisions to request physician-assisted death (PAD). However, it is difficult for clinicians to determine the role of depression in a patient's PAD request. A recent case series described rapid responses to intranasal ketamine in three patients with terminal illness and comorbid depression who had requested PAD. One patient withdrew her request (which, in retrospect, had been driven by her depression) while the others maintained their requests; in all three, the rapid relief clarified the role of depression in the patients' decision-making. In addition to ketamine, there are other emerging rapid-response treatments for depression, including psilocybin with psychological support and functional connectivity-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation. We examine three key ethical implications of such treatments: their role in clarifying the decision-making capacity of depressed patients requesting PAD; the potential tension between the legal definition of irremediability in some jurisdictions and the ethical obligations of clinicians; and the likely obstacles to treatment access and their implications for equal respect for autonomy of patients.

Broad concepts and messy realities: optimising the application of mental capacity criteria

Most jurisdictions require that a mental capacity assessment be conducted using a functional model whose definition includes several abilities. In England and Wales and in increasing number of countries, the law requires a person be able to understand, to retain, to use or weigh relevant information and to communicate one's decision. But interpreting and applying broad and vague criteria, such as the ability 'to use or weigh' to a diverse range of presentations is challenging. By examining actual court judgements of capacity, we previously developed a descriptive typology of justifications (rationales) used in the application of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) criteria. We here critically optimise this typology by showing how clear definitions-and thus boundaries-between the criteria can be achieved if the 'understanding' criterion is used narrowly and the multiple rationales that fall under the ability to 'use or weigh' are specifically enumerated in practice. Such a typology-aided practice, in theory, could make functional capacity assessments more transparent, accountable, reliable and valid. It may also help to create targeted supports for decision making by the vulnerable. We also discuss how the typology could evolve legally and scientifically, and how it lays the groundwork for clinical research on the abilities enumerated by the MCA.

Should Assessments of Decision-Making Capacity Be Risk-Sensitive? A Systematic Review

Background

The concept of decision-making capacity (DMC) or competence remains controversial, despite widespread use. Risk-sensitive DMC assessment (RS-DMC)—the idea that the higher the risk involved in a decision, the greater the decisional abilities required for DMC—has been particularly controversial. We conducted a systematic, descriptive review of the arguments for and against RS-DMC to clarify the debate.

Methods

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), PsycInfo (American Psychological Association) and Philpapers, updating our search to February 15th, 2022. We targeted peer-reviewed publications in English that argue for or against RS-DMC. Two reviewers independently screened the publications and extracted data from each eligible manuscript.

Results

Of 41 eligible publications, 22 supported a risk-sensitive threshold in DMC assessment. Most arguments for RS-DMC rely on its intuitive appeal and practical merits. The arguments against RS-DMC primarily express concerns about paternalism and the seeming asymmetry between consent and refusal; critics of RS-DMC support epistemic, rather than substantive (i.e., variable threshold), risk-sensitivity; counterarguments responding to criticisms of RS-DMC address charges of paternalism and exhibit a notable variety of responses to the issue of asymmetry. Authors used a variety of frameworks regarding the definition of DMC, its elements, and its relation to decisional authority, and these frameworks were significantly associated with positions on RS-DMC. A limitation of our review is that the coding relies on judgment and interpretation.

Conclusion

The review suggests that some of the debate about RS-DMC stems from differences in underlying frameworks. Most defenses of RS-DMC rely on its intuitive appeal, while most criticisms reflect concerns about paternalism or the asymmetry between consent and refusal. Defenses of RS-DMC respond to the asymmetry problem in a variety of ways. Further research is needed on the implications of underlying frameworks, the asymmetry problem, and the distinction between epistemic and substantive models of RS-DMC.

COVID-19-induced negative emotions and the impacts on personal values and travel behaviors: A threat appraisal perspective

Based on the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), this paper aims to examine the role of negative emotions and their impacts on personal value orientations and protective travel behaviors during COVID-19. Data were collected among Chinese Generation Z who have shared the cataclysmic experience of COVID-19 in their formative years. A multimethod approach was adopted with focus group discussions to explore prominent changes in personal values during COVID-19, followed by a quantitative study. The serial mediation analysis supported the sequential internalization of negative emotions and personal values induced from COVID-19 threat appraisals, which in combination, imposed indirect effects on travel avoidance behavior. An extended model suggested that fear is positively related to the values of altruism and hedonism, while mild negative emotions are associated with target orientation. Altruism was found to enhance travel avoidance propensity while target orientation attenuated such propensity. The findings shed light for both academia and the industry.

Difficult Capacity Cases-The Experience of Liaison Psychiatrists. An Interview Study Across Three Jurisdictions

BACKGROUND

Assessment of capacity for treatment and discharge decisions is common in the general hospital. Liaison psychiatrists are often asked to support the treating medical or surgical team in difficult capacity assessments. However, empirical research on identification and resolution of difficult capacity cases is limited. Some studies have identified certain patient, decisional, and interpersonal factors which cause difficulty, but no study has explored how these issues are resolved in practice. Our study therefore aimed to describe how experienced liaison psychiatrists identify and resolve difficult capacity cases in a general hospital setting.

METHODS

We carried out semi-structured interviews with 26 liaison psychiatrists from England, Scotland, and New Zealand, on their most difficult capacity cases. Thematic analysis was used to examine types of difficulty and how these were resolved in practice. Summaries were prepared and example quotes extracted to illustrate phenomena described.

RESULTS

We identified four types of difficulty in capacity assessment, spanning both clinical and ethical domains: 1) Difficulty determining whether the decision is the patient's own or driven by illness, 2) Difficulty in applying ethical principles, 3) Difficulty in avoiding personal bias, and 4) Procedural difficulties. The liaison psychiatrists presented as self-reflective and aware of challenges and pitfalls in hard cases. We summarized their creative strategies to resolve difficulty in assessment.

CONCLUSION

Practitioners approaching difficult capacity cases require both clinical skills, e.g., to uncover subtle illness impairing decision-making and to consider interpersonal dynamics, and ethical skills, e.g., to negotiate the role of values and risks in capacity assessment. Education and training programmes should incorporate both aspects and could include the resolution strategies identified in our study. Practitioners, supported by health and social care systems, should work to develop self-aware and reflective capacity assessment practice.

Psychological Distress in Healthcare Workers between the First and Second COVID-19 Waves: The Role of Personality Traits, Attachment Style, and Metacognitive Functioning as Protective and Vulnerability Factors

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs) since its outbreak, but little attention has been paid to person-level vulnerability and protective factors. This study aims to determine the prevalence of both general and pandemic-related psychological distress among HCWs between the first and second COVID-19 waves in Italy and analyze associations between psychological distress and personality traits, attachment style, and metacognitive functioning. Between June and October 2020, 235 Italian HCWs completed questionnaires concerning psychological stress, personality traits, attachment style, and metacognitive functioning; 26.5% of respondents presented with moderate to extremely severe levels of general psychological distress and 13.8% with moderate to extremely severe levels of pandemic-related psychological distress. After controlling for demographic and occupational variables, significant associations emerged among high emotional stability as a personality trait and both general (aOR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41–0.79) and pandemic-related psychological stress (aOR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41–0.90). Additionally, higher scores regarding one’s ability to understand others’ emotional states were associated with lower odds of developing psychological distress (aOR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63–0.93). Lastly, when comparing those with fearful attachment styles to those with secure attachments, the aOR for psychological distress was 4.73 (95% CI: 1.45–17.04). These results highlight the importance of conducting baseline assessments of HCWs’ person-level factors and providing regular screenings of psychological distress.

Ethical dilemma for healthcare professionals facing elderly dementia patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

The management of elderly patients with dementia and COVID-19 infections without access to an intensive care unit gives rise to serious ethical conflicts. Therapeutic decisions have been made in psychogeriatric units, leaving a heavy moral burden on staff. They had to deal with the most difficult patients without the support of appropriate guidelines. The gap between established rules and hospital reality led to psychological distress and burnout. Managing uncertainty in medical decisions is a skill that doctors and staff learn through experience. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic, uncertainty about patient outcomes seems no longer acceptable. Geriatric triage has challenged professional conscience, emotions and values. The principle of distributive justice, which consists of giving each person in society what is rightfully his or hers, is not being respected during this pandemic. Charity has been reduced to patient survival. Staffs need to make decisions together, and it is important to allow all carers access to a space for reflection. In our unit, the involvement of nurses and care assistants in the decision-making process for patient care is crucial especially for refusal of care. Their view of the patient's condition is different from that of the doctors, as they provide daily care to the patient and stay in the wards for several hours with them. By including as many people as possible in the reflection, we could avoid moral or personal prejudices related to these difficult decisions. The current pandemic can give new meaning to team thinking, giving everyone a voice without hierarchical barriers. With these new waves of COVID-19, we need to rethink our therapeutic conduct for elderly patients with dementia to avoid ethical failure.

Perceived facilitators of and barriers to mental health treatment engagement among decision-making competent adolescents in Greece

BACKGROUND

A subset of adolescents with mental disorders are likely to have decision-making capacity that facilitates their therapy engagement. However, there are high rates of drop-out in mental health settings.

AIM

This study aims to identify perceived barriers to or facilitators of mental health care engagement among adolescents with decision-making competence in Greece.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews of adolescents with a wide range of mental health problems. In addition, two psychometric assessment measures were used to define who to include or exclude from the study sample.

RESULTS

Positive attitudes and experiences with therapy were reported as strong ("major") facilitators of therapy engagement for adolescents with mental disorders, whereas negative experiences with therapy were reported as strong barriers to it. Furthermore, and most importantly, a "good" adolescent-therapist relationship was reported as a strong facilitator, whereas negative experiences of participants with their therapist were reported as strong barriers. Moreover, goals such as getting rid of symptoms, improving personal well-being, and improving social skills and relationships (especially with peers) emerged as strong facilitators of therapy engagement. Importantly, the early remission of symptoms emerged from the study as a strong barrier to therapy engagement for participants. Among the weaker ("minor") perceived facilitators were goals such as confessing to a trustworthy person, becoming able to achieve personal expectations and life goals, enhancing independence and self-esteem, and developing a positive self-image. The (active or supportive) role of family emerged as a facilitator. The stigma related to mental health emerged as both a ("minor") facilitator of and barrier to therapy engagement for participants. Friends were reported as having a role ranging from neutral to mildly supportive.

CONCLUSION

A number of more or less strong barriers and facilitators were identified that, for the most part, were consistent with prior literature. However, the authors identified some nuances that are of clinical importance. For instance, adolescents are most likely to terminate the treatment prematurely if they experience early symptom remission. Highlighting the role of therapy in achieving their goals or improving their families' well-being might be used by therapists to reduce the attrition rate.

Decisional capacity determination and serious mental illness in oncology: Implications for equitable and beneficent care

BACKGROUND

Patients with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) have worse survival compared to cancer patients without SMI after controlling for delayed diagnosis. Decision-making capacity (DMC) may be impaired in both populations (cancer or SMI). DMC may be further impaired based on coupled vulnerability factors that challenge Shared Decision Making (SDM) for patients with cancer and SMI.

METHODS

Psychiatric consultations for DMC in hospitalized patients with cancer (n = 97) were consecutively evaluated across a single institution cancer center. SMI data, demographic, and cancer-related variables were obtained from the medical record. Descriptive data were contrasted in patients with and without DMC and used for logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

Overall, 42% had DMC with no significant differences based on SMI (χ²  = 2.60, p = 0.11). Patients with SMI were younger, receiving anticancer treatment, and were less likely facing end of life issues. Age (OR 1.03, p = 0.05) and no recent anticancer treatments (OR 0.34, p = 0.02) were associated with decisional incapacity. At 3 months post discharge, almost two-thirds were dead with no difference based on SMI (χ²  = 0.01, p = 0.91). But End of Life (EOL) concerns were documented in 63% of non-SMI patients and only 36% of SMI patients (χ²  = 5.63, p = 0.02). Healthcare proxy (16%), four determinates of DMC (22%), and repeated psychiatric DCM assessments (35%) were documented with no differences based on SMI.

CONCLUSION

SDM is not equitable for cancer patients with SMI. Advanced directives and a robust effort to provide value-congruent care for patient with SMI who develop cancer may lessen this health inequity for cancer patients with SMI.

Variety is the spice of life: How emotional diversity is associated with better student engagement and achievement

BACKGROUND

Past studies on emotions have mostly focused on mean levels of positive and negative emotions. In recent years, the concept of emotional diversity (emodiversity) which refers to the variety and relative abundance of emotions was introduced and was found to have important implications for mental and physical health. However, its role in the educational context is unexplored.

AIMS

The current study aimed to examine how emodiversity is associated with indicators of optimal school functioning including engagement and achievement.

SAMPLE(S)

Four hundred four Filipino high school students (M = 14.34, SD = 1.47; 55% female) and 10 class teachers participated in the study.

METHODS

Students completed surveys measuring their emotions, emodiversity, and engagement, while class teachers rated their students' engagement. Finally, grades from the school were obtained at the end of the semester.

RESULTS

Positive emodiversity-diversity of positive emotional experiences-was an independent predictor of academic engagement and school achievement over and above mean levels of positive and negative emotions. These results were found to generalize to self-reported and teacher-reported outcomes as well as more objective measures of achievement. Moreover, findings remained robust after controlling for demographic variables such as gender and year level.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive emodiversity is associated with higher engagement and achievement suggesting the importance of emodiversity in the educational context.

Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: A content analysis of court judgments

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Many jurisdictions use a functional model of capacity with similar legal criteria, but there is a lack of agreed understanding as to how to apply these criteria in practice. We aimed to develop a typology of capacity rationales to describe court practice in making capacity determinations and to guide professionals approaching capacity assessments.

METHODS

We analysed all published cases from courts in England and Wales [Court of Protection (CoP) judgments, or Court of Appeal cases from the CoP] containing rationales for incapacity or intact capacity(n = 131). Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a typology of capacity rationales or abilities. Relationships between the typology and legal criteria for capacity [Mental Capacity Act (MCA)] and diagnoses were analysed.

RESULTS

The typology had nine categories (reliability: kappa = 0.63): 1) to grasp information or concepts, 2) to imagine/ abstract, 3) to remember, 4) to appreciate, 5) to value/ care, 6) to think through the decision non-impulsively, 7) to reason, 8) to give coherent reasons, and 9) to express a stable preference. Rationales most frequently linked to MCA criterion 'understand' were ability to grasp information or concepts (43%) or to appreciate (42%), and to MCA criterion 'use or weigh' were abilities to appreciate (45%) or to reason (32%). Appreciation was the most frequently cited rationale across all diagnoses. Judges often used rationales without linking them specifically to any MCA criteria (42%).

CONCLUSIONS

A new typology of rationales could bridge the gap between legal criteria for decision-making capacity and phenomena encountered in practice, increase reliability and transparency of assessments, and provide targets for decision-making support.

Experiences of the Medication Use Process by People with Intellectual Disabilities. What a Pharmacist Should Know!

There is a scarcity of information about the experience of people with intellectual disabilities in the medication use process. Six people with intellectual disabilities consented to be interviewed by a pharmacist to determine their knowledge and views of medication use. Data from semi-structured interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Self-determination and risk to the quality of the medication use process were identified as theories. Literature review provided two explanations—vulnerabilities of people with intellectual disabilities in healthcare and pharmacists have a role to play in ensuring a quality medication use process for people with intellectual disabilities. People with intellectual disabilities may be ‘expert patients’ and can provide valuable insights into their experience of medication use. They may be ‘high risk’ patients but may not be recognized as such by pharmacists.

Coercive Measures in Psychiatry: A Review of Ethical Arguments

Introduction: Coercion is frequent in clinical practice, particularly in psychiatry. Since it overrides some fundamental rights of patients (notably their liberty of movement and decision-making), adequate use of coercion requires legal and ethical justifications. In this article, we map out the ethical elements used in the literature to justify or reject the use of coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (seclusion, restraint, involuntary hospitalization) and highlight some important issues. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and Cairn.info databases with the keywords "coercive/compulsory measures/care/treatment, coercion, seclusion, restraint, mental health, psychiatry, involuntary/compulsory hospitalization/admission, ethics, legitimacy." We collected all ethically relevant elements used in the author's justifications for or against coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (e.g., values, rights, practical considerations, relevant feelings, expected attitudes, risks of side effects), and coded, and ordered them into categories. Results: Some reasons provided in the literature are presented as justifying an absolute prohibition on coercion; they rely on the view that some fundamental rights, such as autonomy, are non-negotiable. Most ethically relevant elements, however, can be used in a balanced weighting of reasons to favor or reject coercive measures in certain circumstances. Professionals mostly agree that coercion is only legitimate in exceptional circumstances, when the infringement of some values (e.g., freedom of movement, short-term autonomy) is the only means to fulfill other, more important values and goals (e.g., patient's safety, the long-term rebuilding of patient's identity and autonomy). The results of evaluations vary according to which moral elements are prioritized over others. Moreover, we found numerous considerations (e.g., conditions, procedural values) for how to ensure that clinicians apply fair decision-making procedures related to coercion. Based on this analysis, we highlight vital topics that need further development. Conclusion: Before using coercive measures limiting freedom of movement, clinicians should consider and weigh all ethically pertinent elements in the situation and actively search for alternatives that are more respectful of patient's well-being and rights. Coercive measures decided upon after a transparent, carefully balanced evaluation process are more likely to be adequate, understood, and accepted by patients and caregivers.

Decision-making capacity evaluations: the role of neuropsychological assessment from a multidisciplinary perspective

Decision-making capacity (DMC) in aging adults has become increasingly salient as the number of older adults, life expectancy, and the amount of wealth to be transferred from older generations have all increased. The accurate and reliable determination of older adults’ DMC is a particularly important topic given its implication in legal, financial, and health decisions. Based upon the four-ability DMC model promulgated by Appelbaum and Grisso in the 1980’s, a number of MacArthur Competence Assessment Tools have been developed and widely utilized. However, these tools do not include cognitive testing or other sources of objective data and have limited validity in a medico-legal setting, necessitating additional options for the evaluation of DMC. This is significant from the perspective of the patient because they have a vested interest in accurate and objective assessment of their DMC across domains.

Given the disparities in the assessment of DMC, the authors propose, through this debate article, that the evaluation of DMC in the aging adult population utilize a combination of traditional interview and domain specific instruments and neuropsychological testing. To achieve a consensus on the issue, medical experts in a number of fields related to capacity evaluation, including psychiatry, neurology, neuropsychology, and general medicine were consulted and recruited as authors. Experts in Swiss law and ethics were also consulted and provided input.

A tendency to focus on a single capacity, and in particular, the ability to consent to medical treatment, arose in the literature. Similarly, there are many instruments purporting to evaluate a single capacity (e.g., consenting to medical treatment, managing finances), while other areas important to the evaluation of DMC received little attention (e.g., activities of daily living, the ability to live independently, to marry, to resist undue influence, and to make a will or advanced care directive). Medical and legal experts in the multidisciplinary group agreed that there is a clear need for more consistency across evaluation of DMC domains and that a combined approach of traditional methods and neuropsychological testing provides a more thorough evaluation and better serves the patient.

Dementia, Treatment Decisions, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. A New Framework for Old Problems

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been at the center of considerable debate in the field of mental health. The discussion has caught up in particular after the publication of General Comment No. 1 in which the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities proposes a particularly radical interpretation of Article 12 of the Convention. Such a document has triggered skeptic and at times hostile reactions especially by psychiatrists, together with some positive comments. In this context, there is sometimes the tendency to focus only on the problematic aspects of the rights and support based model proposed by the CRPD and its Committee, forgetting that also "pre-CRPD" legislations on legal capacity present significant shortcomings. In this contribution I focus on the paradigmatic case of treatment decisions of people living with dementia with the aim to show how a number of provisions emerging from the CRPD and General Comment No. 1 can contribute to overcome the issues characterizing the traditional model of legal capacity and consent to treatment. First, I provide a brief overview of the provisions contained in the CRPD and General Comment No.1, summarizing the debate in this area. Then, I move to the case of treatment decisions of people living with dementia, analysing the main issues posed by the traditional model of capacity still characterizing European legislations. I will show how such problems and the solutions previously advanced by academics and practitioners resound in many ways with those identified by the CRPD and its Committee. In the second part, I analyse one by one the main provisions proposed by the CRPD and the Committee, studying how they can be applied in the area of treatment decisions of people living with dementia. In this context I point out the possible interpretations of the various provisions and their pros and cons, also referring to ongoing initiatives providing an insight on how such norms might work in practice.

The capacity of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder individuals to make autonomous decisions about pharmacological treatments for their illness in real life: A scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Having decision making capacity is central to the exercise of autonomy in mental health care. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the evidence on the capacity of people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder to make decisions about their treatment in real life to support medical practice.

METHODS

Systematic search of observational studies on the assessment of capacity of patients with schizophrenia, psychosis, or bipolar disorder to make healthcare and treatment-related decisions, conducted in any clinical setting published up to January 31, 2020 was performed. Free text searches and medical subject headings in English were combined in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycInfo. Publications were selected as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies was used to assess the quality of publications.

RESULTS

Thirty publications were reviewed. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria, the publications reviewed were good quality. Findings showed that more than 70% of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder outpatients understood treatment options at the point of making decisions about their illness and healthcare. Patients treated voluntarily had considerably better scores for decisional capacity than those treated involuntarily. The burden of psychiatric symptoms could compromise decisional capacity temporarily. Decision-making capacity improved over time from admission to discharge from hospital, and with treatment among psychiatry inpatients. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients could be as competent as nonpsychiatric individuals in making decisions about their treatments in everyday life.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides a body of evidence for healthcare professionals in need of assessing the capacity of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients for autonomously decide about their treatments. Decisional capacity judgements should consider variations in capacity over time and be based on the type of decision to be made, the severity of symptoms, and the specific phase of the mental disorder.

Evaluation of decision-making capacity in patients with dementia: challenges and recommendations from a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews

Background

Evaluation of decision-making capacity to consent to medical treatment has proved to be difficult in patients with dementia. Studies showed that physicians are often insufficiently trained in the evaluation of decision-making capacity. In this study, we present findings from a secondary analysis of a qualitative interviews with physicians. These interviews were initially used to assess usability of an instrument for the evaluation of decision-making capacity. By looking at difficult cases of decision-making capacity evaluation in patients with dementia, we provide recommendations for such evaluations in clinical practice.

Methods

We used thematic coding to analyse physicians’ narratives of problematic decision-making capacity evaluations in patients with dementia to uncover challenging issues of decision-making capacity evaluation.

Results

In this study, decision-making capacity evaluations in patients with dementia were mainly perceived as challenging when they pertained to treatment refusals and treatment unrelated circumstances, such as psychiatric consultation, advance directives, and new living arrangements. Furthermore, the physicians reported training needs regarding situation-independent challenges with decision-making capacity evaluation.

Conclusions

Upon further examining self-reported training needs and challenging cases, we have developed recommendations to improve decision-making capacity evaluations in clinical practice. In these recommendations, we argue that being able to evaluate decision-making capacity is an integral part of the informed consent process.

Decision-making capacity: from testing to evaluation

Decision-making capacity (DMC) is the gatekeeping element for a patient's right to self-determination with regard to medical decisions. A DMC evaluation is not only conducted on descriptive grounds but is an inherently normative task including ethical reasoning. Therefore, it is dependent to a considerable extent on the values held by the clinicians involved in the DMC evaluation. Dealing with the question of how to reasonably support clinicians in arriving at a DMC judgment, a new tool is presented that fundamentally differs from existing ones: the U-Doc. By putting greater emphasis on the judgmental process rather than on the measurement of mental abilities, the clinician as a decision-maker is brought into focus, rendering the tool more of an evaluation guide than a test instrument. In a qualitative study, the perceived benefits of and difficulties with the tool have been explored. The findings show on the one hand that the evaluation aid provides basic orientation, supports a holistic perspective on the patient, sensitizes for ethical considerations and personal biases, and helps to think through the decision, to argue, and to justify one's judgment. On the other hand, the room for interpretation due to absent operationalisations, related ambiguities, and the confrontation with one's own subjectivity may be experienced as unsettling.

Patient Preferences for Surgery or Antibiotics for the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis

Importance

Studies have compared surgical with nonsurgical therapy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but none of these studies have a patient-centered perspective.

Objectives

To evaluate how patients might choose between surgical and nonsurgical therapy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis and to identify targets to make antibiotic treatment more appealing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study comprised an online survey and an in-person sensitivity analysis survey. For the web survey, a convenience sample of 1728 respondents were asked to imagine that they or their child had acute uncomplicated appendicitis, provided information about laparoscopic and open appendectomy and antibiotic treatment alone, and asked which treatment they might choose. The web survey was open from April 17, 2016, through June 16, 2016, and was disseminated via email link, a poster with a Quick Response code, and social media. For the sensitivity analysis, 220 respondents were given the same scenario and options. Those who chose surgery were asked whether certain factors influenced their decision; each factor was incrementally improved during questioning about whether respondents would consider switching to antibiotics. These participants were recruited at public venues from June 3, 2016, to July 31, 2016. Web survey data were analyzed from June 17, 2016, to September 21, 2017. Sensitivity analysis data were analyzed from August 1, 2016, to September 21, 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Treatment preferences.

Results

Among the 1728 web survey respondents, 1225 (70.9%) were female and 500 (28.9%) were male (3 [0.2%] either did not answer or responded as "gender fluid" within the comments section of the survey), and most self-reported being between 50 and 59 years of age (391 [22.6%]) and being non-Hispanic white (1563 [90.5%]). For themselves, 1482 respondents (85.8%) chose laparoscopic appendectomy, 84 (4.9%) chose open appendectomy, and 162 (9.4%) chose antibiotics alone. For their child, 1372 respondents (79.4%) chose laparoscopic appendectomy, 106 (6.1%) open appendectomy, and 250 (14.5%) antibiotics alone. Respondents were somewhat more likely to choose antibiotics for themselves if they had education beyond college (105 [12.6%]; P < .001), identified as other than non-Hispanic white (24 [14.9%]; P < .001), or did not know anyone who had previously been hospitalized (12 [15.8%]; P = .02), but they were less likely to choose antibiotics if they were surgeons (11 [5.4%]; P = .008). Of the 220 participants interviewed for the sensitivity analysis, 120 (54.5%) were female and 100 (45.5%) were male, and most self-reported being between 18 and 24 years of age (53 [24.1%]) and being non-Hispanic white (204 [92.7%]). Their responses suggested that improvements in the short- and long-term failure rate of antibiotic treatment-rather than reductions in the duration of hospitalization or antibiotic treatment-were more likely to increase the desirability of choosing antibiotics.

Conclusions and Relevance

Most patients may choose surgical intervention over antibiotics alone in treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but a meaningful number may choose nonoperative management. Therefore, from a patient-centered perspective, this option should be discussed with patients, and future research could be directed at reducing the failure and recurrence rates of antibiotic treatment for appendicitis.

How to Strengthen Patients' Meaning Response by an Ethical Informed Consent in Psychotherapy

Healthcare professionals including psychotherapists are legally and ethically obliged to ensure informed consent for the provided treatments comprising type and duration or potential benefits and possible risks (e.g., side effects) among others. In the present contribution, we argue that as potential benefit, informed consent can foster the patient’s meaning response. Moerman’s notion of the meaning response as the physiological or psychological effects of meaning in the course and treatment of an illness is a useful concept in explaining the effects of communicating a treatment rationale as part of the informed consent procedure. The more compelling the rational explanation of the targeted treatment effects including an explanatory model and a model of unique and common change mechanisms, the stronger the meaning response is expected to be resulting in increased hope and positive expectations with regard to the treatment.

Misevaluating the Future: Affective Disorder and Decision-Making Capacity for Treatment - A Temporal Understanding

BACKGROUND

Within psychiatric practice and policy there is considerable controversy surrounding the nature and assessment of impairments of decision-making capacity (DMC) for treatment in persons diagnosed with affective disorders. We identify the problems of "cognitive bias" and "outcome bias" in assessment of DMC for treatment in affective disorder and aim to help resolve these problems with an analysis of how time is experienced in depression and mania.

SAMPLING AND METHODS

We conducted purposeful sampling and a qualitative phenomenological analysis of interview data on patients with depression and mania, exploring temporal experience and decision-making regarding treatment.

RESULTS

In both severe depression and mania there is a distinctive experience of the future. Two consequences can follow: a loss of evaluative differentiation concerning future outcomes and, relatedly, inductive failure. This temporal inability can compromise an individual's ability to appreciate or "use or weigh" treatment information.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making abilities required for self-determination involve an ability to evaluate alternative future outcomes. Our results show that, within severe depression or mania, anticipation of future outcomes is inflexibly fixed at one end of the value spectrum. We therefore propose a temporal model of decision-making abilities, which could be used to improve assessment of DMC in affective disorder.

What are the contents of patient engagement interventions for older adults? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To describe the contents of interventions reported in RCTs focusing on patient engagement of older adults.

METHODS

A systematic literature review based on a search for "patient engagement/activation/empowerment/involvement/participation". Interventions were classified according to: (i) specific components (micro level), (ii) single/multiple dimensions (educational, behavioral, affective) (meso level), and (iii) the studies' main educational, behavioral or affective dimension (macro level).

RESULTS

After screening 2749 articles, 35 were included. 20 unique components were identified, mostly behavioral or educational (45.5% each) (e.g., goal setting or written informational materials). Most interventions with a single-focus were classified as educational (31%), one was solely affective (3%). Half of the interventions covered more than one dimension, with four (11%) combining all three dimensions. Studies mainly focusing on the affective dimension included older participants (72 vs. 67 years), had a higher proportion of females (71% vs. 44%), and included other dimensions more frequently (67% vs. 31%) than did studies with a main focus on the educational dimension.

CONCLUSION

The contents of the interventions that focused on patient engagement of older adults tend to focus more on behavioral and educational dimensions than the affective dimension.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The possibility of adding the affective dimension into behavioral and/or educational interventions should be explored.

Evaluating Decision-Making Capacity

Abstract. The study identified factors that make an evaluation of decision-making capacity (DMC) difficult for clinicians in their daily work. Semistructured interviews were carried out with 24 healthcare professionals from Switzerland and subsequently thematically analyzed. The challenges they faced when evaluating DMC stemmed from three main concerns: patient characteristics that impede DMC evaluation; differing opinions and consequences of DMC evaluation; and familial and legal situations that complicate such evaluations. Physicians must be adequately trained to evaluate DMC as it is closely related to basic ethical principles of respect for patients’ autonomy and beneficence. Extensive training on DMC evaluation and the legal concept of capacity should be part of pre- and postgraduate education.

Medical Decision-Making Capacity

Abstract. Decision-making capacity (DMC) is a prerequisite for informed consent to medical treatments. However, little is known about the knowledge, attitudes, and evaluation of DMC among physicians in Croatia. A survey was conducted among 180 general practitioners and psychiatrists in Croatia. Although from a legal perspective DMC is a dichotomous concept, about 90% of physicians indicated that they understand DMC to be a gradual concept. A majority of physicians considered themselves responsible and qualified to conduct DMC evaluations, though some physicians considered themselves insufficiently qualified. General practitioners considered themselves less responsible and less qualified than psychiatrists. Almost all participants indicated that they would welcome official guidelines and training.

Is decision-making capacity an "essentially contested" concept in pediatrics?

Key legislations in many countries emphasize the importance of involving children in decisions regarding their own health at a level commensurate with their age and capacities. Research is engaged in developing tools to assess capacity in children in order to facilitate their responsible involvement. These instruments, however, are usually based on the cognitive criteria for capacity assessment as defined by Appelbaum and Grisso and thus ill adapted to address the life-situation of children. The aim of this paper is to revisit and critically reflect upon the current definitions of decision-making capacity. For this purpose, we propose to see capacity through the lens of essential contestability as it warns us against any reification of what it means to have capacity. Currently, capacity is often perceived of as a mental or cognitive ability which somehow resides within the person, obscuring the fact that capacity is not just an objective property which can be assessed, but always operates within a dominant cultural framework that "creates" that same capacity and defines the threshold between capable and incapable in a specific situation. Defining capacity as an essentially contested concept means using it in a questioning mode and giving space to alternative interpretations that might inform and advance the debate surrounding decision-making.