Patients describe experiencing personal recovery despite ongoing symptoms of psychosis. The aim of the current research was to perform a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between clinical and personal recovery in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. A comprehensive OvidSP database search was performed to identify relevant studies. Correlation coefficients of the relationship between clinical and personal recovery were retrieved from primary studies. Meta-analyses were performed, calculating mean weighted effect sizes for the association between clinical and personal recovery, hope, and empowerment. Additionally, associations between positive, negative, affective symptoms, general functioning, and personal recovery were investigated. The results show that heterogeneity across studies was substantial. Random effect meta-analysis of the relationship between symptom severity and personal recovery revealed a mean weighted correlation coefficient of r = −.21 (95% CI = −0.27 to −0.14, P < .001). We found the following mean weighted effect size for positive symptoms r = −.20 (95% CI = −0.27 to −0.12, P < .001), negative symptoms r = −.24 (95% CI = −0.33 to −0.15, P < .001), affective symptoms r = −.34 (95% CI = −0.44 to −0.24, P < .001) and functioning r = .21 (95% CI = −0.09 to 0.32, P < .001). The results indicate a significant small to medium association between clinical and personal recovery. Psychotic symptoms show a smaller correlation than affective symptoms with personal recovery. These findings suggest that clinical and personal recovery should both be considered in treatment and outcome monitoring of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

Objective: The main objective of this article is to evaluate and describe instruments for assessing decision-making capacity in psychiatry and psychogeriatrics, and to evaluate them for use in daily practice. Methods: The instruments were selected in Medline articles. We focus on the relationship between these instruments and the concept of competence, represented in the following elements: context in which an instrument is developed, disclosure of information, standards to assess decision-making capacity, the scale or threshold model, and validity and reliability. Results: The developmental context influences how information is provided and standards defined. Although it is not clear how decision-making capacity relates to competency judgments, most instruments provide good reliability. Conclusions: Comparison of the different instruments opens directions for future research. Although instruments can never replace a physician's judgment, they may provide a clear starting point for a discussion on competence. In daily practice assessments, attention should be given to information disclosure, the influence of our own normative values in evaluating standards of decision-making capacity, and the relation between decision-making capacity and competence.

This article evaluates whether providing hypothetical or realistic information influences the assessment of decision-making capacity in elderly patients with (and without) cognitive impairment. Decision-making capacity was assessed by means of a clinical vignette that presented a choice about whether to undergo an endoscopic procedure. The following standards of decision-making capacity were evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively: ability to evidence a choice, to understand, to reason, and to appreciate a situation. The vignette was presented to patients in either a hypothetical or real situation. In the hypothetical situation cognitively impaired patients performed significantly poorer than cognitively non-impaired patients on all abilities associated with decision-making capacity (with the exception of evidencing a choice). The realistic situation showed the same pattern among cognitively impaired and non-impaired patients in their ability to understand and in the total vignette score. Both types of patients reasoned about and appreciated the realistic situation equally well. Qualitative analysis revealed that patients gave comparable answers in both hypothetical and realistic situations. The answers were not related to standards of decision-making capacity. Moreover, personal circumstances were taken as a reference point for making a decision, regardless of the situation. We did not find any major differences between the hypothetical and realistic situation. Our findings do raise questions about the validity of hypothetical vignettes, however, especially when used with cognitively impaired persons.