All of the above points were marked by a decision on a specific research study. Although mental status, fatigue, anxiety, acute pain and other fluctuating factors can influence a person`s ability to understand information at a given time, decision-making ability is not an intrapersonal property, analogous to shyness or intelligence, but a context-dependent construct. The relevant question is therefore not a participant`s general decision-making ability, but their ability to understand, appreciate, appreciate and express participation in a specific research study. A person may retain the ability to consent to a relatively simple research protocol, but it is more difficult for them to decide to participate in a protocol where procedures and/or risk-benefit considerations are more complex. Researchers have an ethical obligation to ensure that human participants are able to make informed decisions when they think about whether or not to participate in a study. One factor that should not generally be used for decision-making is the presence or absence of a particular diagnosis. Studies show that many people with serious mental illnesses, at least outside the context of the most acute illnesses, retain the ability to understand, appreciate, appreciate, justify and express their participation in research protocols (Appelbaum, 2006; Jeste, Depp, Palmer, 2006). Particularly in the case of schizophrenia, much empirical research suggests that it is, at least in outpatients, cognitive deficits that are often associated with this disorder that most directly influence decision-making ability, not the main psychopathological symptoms (Palmer-Savla, 2007). In short, while clinical conditions are often risk factors for capacity disruption, they do not mean loss of capacity. Researchers can improve the understanding of participants in the above study by making the approval process more interactive – and this is especially important when there are concerns about a potential participant`s decision-making ability. Many misunderstandings can be avoided or resolved through a simple iterative discussion process, in which researchers describe the most important information among laypersons, including, if necessary, visual aids, and then ask the potential participant to explain the essential information in their own terms, giving corrective feedback and reassessing understanding if necessary.