Of the instruments reviewed, the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tools for Clinical Research and for Treatment have the most empirical support, although other instruments may be equally or better suited to certain situations. Contextual factors are important but understudied. Capacity assessment tools should undergo further empirically based development and refinement as well as testing with a variety of populations.

As the concept of schizophrenia began to develop over a century ago, it was accompanied by little hope of recovery. As the second half of the 20th century began, new treatments and changing social conditions resulted in most long-term patients being discharged into the community. Many of these expatients showed more improvement than had been expected. Treatment approaches evolved to help these persons live better lives in the community. In the recent past, psychosocial and psychiatric rehabilitation approaches to treatment have increasingly incorporated perspectives of persons in recovery. These perspectives are explored with emphasis on how they have helped drive federal government and other perspectives on recovery. Particular attention is given to the varying views of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other highly trained persons who have themselves been diagnosed and treated for schizophrenia.

Despite the availability of structured decision-making capacity assessment tools, insufficient guidance exists for applying their results. Investigators often use cutpoints on these instruments to identify potential subjects in need of further assessment or education. Yet, information is lacking regarding the effects of different cutpoints on the proportion and characteristics of individuals categorized as possessing adequate or impaired decisional abilities for consent to research. To demonstrate the potential impact of different standards, we informed 91 individuals, aged 50 or older with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, about a hypothetical clinical trial, and assessed their decisional abilities with the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR). Three published MacCAT-CR-based standards were applied to participants' scores to examine the rates and correlates of categorical determinations of adequate performance. The three standards ranged in stringency: the most stringent incorporated cutpoints on all three of the major MacCAT-CR subscales (Understanding, Appreciation, and Reasoning); the other two standards required threshold performance only on the Understanding subscale. The most stringent standard resulted in a 57% rate of impaired performance; the intermediate standard, 19%; and the least stringent standard, 8%. Nearly half of the participants (n=45) were classified as having performed adequately by the least stringent standard yet inadequately by the most stringent. The majority of these 45 were impaired on the Appreciation subscale (n=9), Reasoning (n=15), or both (n=18). Cognitive functioning was correlated with performance status for the more stringent standards. These findings underscore the need for refinement of capacity assessment procedures and for improvements in the use of capacity assessment tools for screening purposes and to assist in categorical capacity determinations.

There are complex considerations when planning to disclose an attenuated psychosis syndrome (APS) diagnosis. In this review, we evaluate ethical, legal, and clinical perspectives as well as caveats related to full, non- and partial disclosure strategies, discuss societal implications, and provide clinical suggestions. Each of the disclosure strategies is associated with benefits as well as costs/considerations. Full disclosure promotes autonomy, allows for the clearest psychoeducation about additional risk factors, helps to clarify and/or correct previous diagnoses/treatments, facilitates early intervention and bolsters communication between providers but there are important considerations involving heritability, comorbidity, culture, and stigma. Non-disclosure advances nonmaleficence by limiting stigma and stress (which may inadvertently exacerbate the condition), and confusion (related to the rapidly evolving diagnosis) in a sensitive developmental period but is complicated by varying patient preferences and the possibility that, as new treatments without adverse effects become available, the risk with false positives no longer justifies the accompanying loss of autonomy. Partial disclosure balances ethical considerations by focusing on symptoms instead of labels, but evidence that laypersons may interpret this information as a pseudo-diagnosis and that symptoms alone also contribute to stigma limits the efficacy of this approach. In addition, there are notable societal considerations relating to disclosure involving conservatorship, the reach of insurance companies, and discrimination. We advocate a hybrid approach to disclosure and recommend future research aimed at understanding the effects of stigma on clinical course and a renewed focus on those help-seeking cases that do not transition but remain clinically relevant.