4.2 Article

The Greek version of the MacArthur competence assessment tool for treatment: reliability and validity. Evaluation of capacity for treatment decisions in Greek psychiatric patients

Journal

ANNALS OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1744-859X-12-10

Keywords

Treatment decision-making capacity; MacArthur competence assessment tool for treatment; Competence; Psychiatric patients

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Patients' informed consent prior to treatment initiation is an essential component of contemporary clinical practice, but sometimes, patients lack decision-making capacity for treatment. Such capacity can be reliably assessed with standardized tools used, and the MacArthur competence assessment tool for treatment (MacCAT-T) is one of the most widely used instruments. Methods: The objective of this study was to translate the MacCAT-T into Greek and evaluate the Greek version's reliability and validity in psychiatric patients. Thirty-nine psychiatric inpatients were examined with the MacCAT-T, and results showed an excellent inter-rater reliability. Results: Intraclass correlations ranged from 0.93 to 1 for the individual items of the tool. Severity of psychopathology was negatively correlated with reasoning, appreciation, and expressing a choice (Pearson's r 0.36, 0.539, and 0.338, respectively), but there were no associations with demographic characteristics of the patients. Of the five factors derived from the brief psychiatric rating scale, anergia was significantly correlated with appreciation, reasoning, and expressing a choice (Pearson's r 0.46, 0.45, and 0.37, respectively). Conclusions: The Greek version of the MacCAT-T is a reliable and valid instrument that can provide a standardized measure for assessing treatment decision capacity in Greek psychiatric patients and can be used for evaluation in the clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available