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

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1007/s10730-021-09465-5
Ana S IItis, Akaya Lewis, Sarah Neely, Stephannie Walker Seaton, Sarah H Jeong
{"title":"Applying Genetic and Genomic Tools to Psychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Ana S IItis,&nbsp;Akaya Lewis,&nbsp;Sarah Neely,&nbsp;Stephannie Walker Seaton,&nbsp;Sarah H Jeong","doi":"10.1007/s10730-021-09465-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8631566/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-021-09465-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应用遗传学和基因组学工具治疗精神疾病:范围综述。
引言:生物伦理学文献反映了在各种环境中使用遗传和基因组信息的重大兴趣和关注。由于精神病学治疗和研究引发了独特的伦理、法律和社会问题,我们对生物医学、生物伦理学和心理学文献进行了范围审查,这些文献涉及将遗传和基因组工具应用于精神疾病(如DSM-5所列)和两种相关行为或症状,以提供该领域更详细的概述。目的:主要目标是检查现有的生物伦理学、生物医学和心理学文献,这些文献是关于将遗传和基因组工具应用于精神疾病(神经发育障碍除外)以及有时与之相关的两种行为或症状(攻击或暴力和自杀),以确定这些工具已被应用于哪些疾病、应用这些工具的背景或目的、伦理、法律、或者与这些用途相关的社会问题,以及减轻这些问题的建议。方法:采用Arksey和O'Malley的范围审查框架:(1)确定研究问题;(2)确定相关研究;(3)选择研究;(4)绘制数据图;(5)整理、总结和报告结果(2005)。我们依靠Levac等人来告知我们的应用框架(2010)。范围审查清单的PRISMA扩展通知了我们的报告(2018年)。我们检索了三个电子数据库MEDLINE (PubMed)、Embase和PsycInfo (EbscoHost),检索同行评议的英文期刊文章,以确定相关文献。一位作者筛选了初步结果,并与其他作者协商进行了进一步的筛选。使用DSM-5诊断类别(不包括神经发育障碍)的数据提取表被开发出来,两位作者各自独立地审查了大约一半的文章。通过对大约10%的论文进行双重编码,确保了评分者之间的可靠性。另外一位作者独立编写了10%的文章,以审计数据。结果:在365篇编码出版物中,我们确定了15种DSM-5诊断类别,以及两种预先选择的行为或症状(攻击或暴力和自杀),遗传学或基因组工具已被应用。我们确定了应用这些工具的11个设置或目的。确定了与将遗传或基因组工具应用于这些疾病或行为/症状有关的22种伦理、法律或社会关切,以及可减轻这些关切的13种做法或政策。结论:遗传学和基因组学工具已广泛应用于精神疾病。这引发了一系列道德、法律和社会问题。有必要进行进一步的研究,以便更好地了解这些关切和解决这些关切的有效方法。推进文献以确定相关的伦理、法律或社会问题以及这些问题的解决方案可能需要更多地关注遗传或基因组工具对特定精神疾病和相关行为/症状的具体应用,以及广泛的利益相关者参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
期刊最新文献
Positioning Ethics When Direct Patient Care is Prioritized: Experiences from Implementing Ethics Case Reflection Rounds in Childhood Cancer Care. An Ethics Consult Documentation Simplification Project: Summation of Participatory Processes, User Perceptions, and Subsequent Use Patterns. Survey of Moral Distress and Self-Awareness among Health Care Professionals. The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns. Correction to: Evaluation of Interventions to Address Moral Distress: A Multi-method Approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1