Research risk for persons with psychiatric disorders: a decisional framework to meet the ethical challenge

Applying Genetic and Genomic Tools to Psychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

The bioethics literature reflects significant interest in and concern with the use of genetic and genomic information in various settings. Because psychiatric treatment and research raises unique ethical, legal, and social issues, we conducted a scoping review of the biomedical, bioethics, and psychology literature regarding the application of genetic and genomic tools to psychiatric disorders (as listed in the DSM-5) and two associated behaviors or symptoms to provide a more detailed overview of the state of the field.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to examine the available bioethics, biomedical, and psychology literature on applying genetic and genomic tools to psychiatric disorders (other than neurodevelopmental disorders) and two behaviors or symptoms sometimes associated with them (aggression or violence and suicidality) to identify the disorders to which these tools have been applied, the contexts in or purposes for which they have been applied, the ethical, legal, or social concerns associated with those uses, and proposed recommendations for mitigating those concerns.

METHODS

We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) select studies; (4) chart the data; and (5) collate, summarize, and report results (2005). We relied on Levac et al. to inform our application of the framework (2010). The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews checklist informed our reporting (2018). We searched three electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and PsycInfo (EbscoHost) for peer-reviewed journal articles in English to identify relevant literature. One author screened the initial results and additional screening was done in consultation with other authors. A data extraction form using DSM-5 diagnostic categories (excluding neurodevelopmental disorders) was developed and two authors independently each reviewed approximately half of the articles. Inter-rater reliability was ensured by double-coding approximately 10% of the papers. An additional author independently coded 10% of the articles to audit the data.

RESULTS

In 365 coded publications, we identified 15 DSM-5 diagnostic categories in addition to the two pre-selected behaviors or symptoms (aggression or violence and suicidality) to which genetic or genomic tools have been applied. We identified 11 settings in or purposes for which these tools were applied. Twenty-two types of ethical, legal, or social concerns associated with the application of genetic or genomic tools to these disorders or behaviors/symptoms were identified along with 13 practices or policies that could mitigate these concerns.

CONCLUSION

Genetic and genomic tools have been applied to a wide range of psychiatric disorders. These raise a range of ethical, legal, and social concerns. Additional research is warranted to better understand the concerns and effective ways to address them. Advancing the literature to identify relevant ethical, legal, or social concerns and solutions to those problems likely requires greater attention to specific applications of genetic or genomic tools to particular psychiatric disorders and associated behaviors/symptoms as well as broad stakeholder engagement.

Drug Development for New Psychiatric Drug Therapies

Drug development is an expensive, high risk, and highly regulated process. Only about 6.2% of new molecules tested for mental disorders eventually achieve Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. New molecular entities are produced, and extensive in vitro animal testing is performed before they are evaluated in humans. The compound is used in animals to predict clinical effects in humans, and studies addressing pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, toxicology, and mutagenicity are conducted. Human research proceeds in three stages with the ultimate goal of proving that a new agent is efficacious and safe for a treatment of a specific disease in humans. If efficacy and safety are demonstrated in two Phase III studies, then the sponsor can submit a new drug application (NDA) to the FDA. The FDA oversees each step of the process to assure that good research practices are followed, data integrity is assured, and human research subjects are protected.

Informed consent, genomic research and mental health: A integrative review

BACKGROUND

Research on genomics has increased while the biobank activities are becoming more common in different countries. In the mental health field, the questions concerning the potential participants' vulnerability as well as capacity to give the informed consent can cause reluctancy in recruiting persons with mental health problems, although the knowledge and understanding of mental health problems has remarkable changed, and practice is guided with inclusive approaches, such as recovery approach.

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe the current knowledge of informed consent practices in the context of genomic research on mental health from the nurses' viewpoint.

METHODS

An integrative review was conducted with search from seven international databases. Data consist 14 publications which were analyzed with thematic analysis.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical requirements were respected in every phase of the research process.

FINDINGS

Most of the papers were published in USA and between 2000-2010. Eight reports were categorized as discussion papers, four qualitative studies and one quantitative study. The thematic analysis provided information on five themes: complexity with the capacity to consent, mixed emotions towards participation, factors influencing the decision to participate, nurses' informed consent process competence and variations between consent procedures.

DISCUSSION

In the informed consent practices, there are various aspects which may affect both the willingness to participate in the study and the informed consent process itself. Implications for practice, education, research, and policies are discussed.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for more updated international research on the topic in the context of different international and national guidelines, legislation, and directives. This study provided a viewpoint to the more collaborative research activities with people with lived experiences also in this field of research following the ideas of recovery approach.

'Sick and tired': Patients reported reasons for not participating in clinical psychiatric research

Background

Meaningful and generalizable research depends on patients' willingness to participate. Studies often fail to reach satisfactory representativeness.

Objective

This paper aims to investigate reasons for not participating in research among young adult patients with psychiatric illness.

Method

A quantitative cross‐sectional study was performed based on questionnaires reported on by 51 psychiatric patients (14 males, 35 females and two unspecified) who had previously declined participation in an ongoing research project. Thereafter, a qualitative interview with subsequent content analysis was conducted with ten additional patients (five males, five females).

Results

The questionnaires indicate being ‘too tired/too sick to participate’ as the most common barrier. Lack of time and fear of needles were other common barriers. Lack of trust or belief in the value of research was less inhibitive. In the interviews, disabling psychiatric symptoms were confirmed as the main reason for not participating. Several potential ways to increase participation were identified, such as simplification of procedures and information as well as providing rewards and feedback, and building relationships before asking.

Conclusion

This study is unusual as it focuses on the group of young people attending psychiatry outpatient clinics we know very little about – those who do not partake in research. Our results indicate that fatigue and sickness reduce research participation and identify factors that may facilitate enrolment of this important group.

No regrets: Young adult patients in psychiatry report positive reactions to biobank participation

BACKGROUND

Research in vulnerable individuals must insure voluntariness and minimize negative reactions caused by participation. This study aimed to describe consent and completion rate in young psychiatric patients in relation to study components, degree of disability and to compare response to research participation in patients and controls.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2015, 463 patients with psychiatric disorders between the ages of 18-25 from the Dept. of General Psychiatry at Uppsala University Hospital and 105 controls were recruited to donate data and samples to a biobank. Consent and completion in relation to questionnaires, biological sampling of blood, saliva or feces, were monitored. Both groups were also asked about their perceived disability and how research participation affected them.

RESULTS

Most patients who participated consented to and completed questionnaires and blood sampling. The majority also consented to saliva sampling, while less than half consented to collect feces. Of those who gave consent to saliva and feces only half completed the sampling. Both patients and controls reported high voluntariness and were positive to research participation. Within the patient group, those with greater perceived disability reported greater distress while participating in research, but there was no difference in consent or completion rates or level of regret.

CONCLUSIONS

With the described information procedures, psychiatric patients, regardless of perceived disability, reported high voluntariness and did not regret participation in biobanking. Compared to questionnaires and blood sampling, given consent was reduced for feces and completion was lower for both saliva and feces sampling.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR): How Can We Optimize Outcomes in CNS Research?

Patient-centered outcomes research increases patient involvement in health-related decisions with better information of benefits, risks, and options as it pertains to patient health. Patient-centered outcomes research is valuable for improving patient options in general; however, the vulnerability of patients with certain central nervous system conditions and their variable capacity to consent may pose significant challenges. Methods/review: Authors acknowledge the historical issues and address needs regarding better dissemination of knowledge in central nervous system conditions like dementia, depression, and schizophrenia. Authors propose ethical safeguards necessary to carry out sound patient-centered outcomes research in this unique population. Discussion/recommendations: To facilitate ethical patient-centered outcomes research, researchers must 1) assess the individual's mental capacity to provide consent, 2) determine vulnerability and risk of conducting research in specific subgroups, and 3) consider appointment of legally authorized representatives and/or consent monitors to ensure accurate understanding of research and ongoing direct communication with patients, especially when their future prognosis is unpredictable.