Views of the importance of psychiatric genetic research by potential volunteers from stakeholder groups

Perceived protectiveness of research safeguards and influences on willingness to participate in research: A novel MTurk pilot study

Little is known about how individuals with mood disorders view the protectiveness of research safeguards, and whether their views affect their willingness to participate in psychiatric research. We conducted an online survey with 80 individuals (self-reported mood disorder [n = 25], self-reported good health [n = 55]) recruited via MTurk. We assessed respondents' perceptions of the protectiveness of five common research safeguards, as well as their willingness to participate in research that incorporates each safeguard. Perceived protectiveness was strongly related to willingness to participate in research for four of the safeguards. Our findings add to a limited literature on the motivations and perspectives of key stakeholders in psychiatric research.

Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent

Recent breakthroughs in psychiatric genetics have identified genetic risk factors of yet unknown clinical value. A main ethical principal in the context of psychiatric research as well as future clinical genetic testing is the respect for a person's autonomy to decide whether to undergo genetic testing, and whom to grant access to genetic data. However, experience within the psychiatric genetic research setting has indicated controversies surrounding attitudes toward this ethical principal. This study aimed to explore attitudes concerning the right of individuals to self-determine testing and disclosure of results, and to determine whether these attitudes are context-dependent, that is, not directly related to the test result but rather to specific circumstances. N = 160 individuals with major depression or bipolar disorder and n = 29 relatives of individuals with either illness completed an online-questionnaire assessing attitudes toward genetic testing, genetic research, disclosure of results, incidental findings, and access to psychiatric genetic test results. Generally, the right of the person's autonomy was considered very important, but attitudes varied. For example, half of those who considered that children should have the right to refuse psychiatric genetic testing even against their parents' will, also state that they should be tested upon their parents' wishes. Also, the majority of respondents considered the physician entitled to disregard their stated wishes concerning the disclosure of incidental findings in case of good treatment options. Thus, researchers and clinicians must be aware that attitudes toward psychiatric genetic testing are often mutable and should discuss these prior to testing.

Attitudes Toward Psychiatric Genetic Testing and Research: A Comparative Study Between Denmark and Cuba

Introduction: Psychiatric genetic research has seen progress in identifying genetic risk variants associated with major mental disorders. Testing with preventive purposes is likely to be offered to high-risk individuals in the near future. It is important that genetic testing and counseling align with the interests of the patients, and these interests are likely to vary among countries and cultures. Aim: The present study aimed to compare the attitudes toward psychiatric genetic research and genetic testing in Denmark and Cuba. Materials and Methods: A survey, culturally adapted for each country, was administered to a pool of students, patients with depression, and the closest relatives of these patients. A total of 491 stakeholders from Denmark and 720 from Cuba were included in the study. Results: Significant differences between the two populations were found for general knowledge about psychiatric genetic research, whom to offer genetic testing, and to whom to entrust with psychiatric genetic information. Cuban stakeholders were more likely to feel uncomfortable about psychiatric genetic research than the Danish stakeholders. This difference might be driven by the characteristics of the health systems, sociocultural factors, and lower genetic literacy in the Cuban population. Conclusion: This study is the first to compare attitudes toward psychiatric genetic testing between a Latin American country and a Nordic country. The results reported could be valuable when designing general guidelines for psychiatric genetic testing in the future.

Safeguarding Participants in Psychiatric Genetic Research: Perspectives of Key Stakeholder Groups

Public trust in research depends on implementation of research protections. Genetic and psychiatric research may elicit "exceptionalism," the belief that these types of research deserve special protections. Genetic information has been viewed as different from other health information. Psychiatric research has been scrutinized based on concerns about the impact of psychiatric illness on individuals' abilities to make decisions. This study compared four stakeholder groups' attitudes toward research safeguards. Psychiatric genetic researchers and institutional review board chairs received structured surveys. Individuals with mental illness and family members participated in semistructured interviews. Paired sample t-tests were used to compare mean ratings of importance of safeguard procedures for genetic versus nongenetic research on physical versus mental illnesses. All groups provided higher ratings for the importance of safeguards for genetic research and for mental illness. Individuals with mental illness and family members rated the importance of safeguards more highly than researchers and chairs did. Results of generalized linear models showed significant effects of gender and ethnicity.

Perspectives of psychiatric investigators and IRB chairs regarding benefits of psychiatric genetics research

There is hope that psychiatric genetics inquiry will provide important insights into the origins and treatment of mental illness given the burden of these conditions. We sought to examine perspectives of psychiatric genetic investigators regarding the potential benefits of genetic research in general and the potential benefits of genetic research for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses specifically. We compared investigator attitudes with those of chairs of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) entrusted with evaluating the benefits and risks of human research studies. Two groups directly engaged with the conduct and oversight of psychiatric genetic research were examined (psychiatric investigators, n = 203; IRB Chairs, n = 183). Participants rated 15 survey items regarding current and future benefits of general genetic research, possible benefits of psychiatric genetic research, and the importance to society of genetic vs. non-genetic research examining causes and treatments of illnesses. Investigators and IRB Chairs strongly endorsed the future benefits of general genetic research for society and for the health of individuals; compared to IRB Chairs, investigators were more positive about these benefits. Even after adjusting for demographic variables, psychiatric genetic investigators were significantly more optimistic about genetic research compared with IRB Chairs. Both groups were moderately optimistic about the possible benefits of genetic research related to mental illness. Greater optimism was seen regarding new or personalized medications for mental illnesses, as well as genetic predictive testing of mental illnesses. Greater precision and circumspection about the potential benefits of psychiatric genetic research are needed.