严重精神疾病风险预测中的伦理和社会问题:范围审查和专题分析。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Ivars Neiders, Signe Mežinska, Neeltje E M van Haren
{"title":"严重精神疾病风险预测中的伦理和社会问题:范围审查和专题分析。","authors":"Ivars Neiders, Signe Mežinska, Neeltje E M van Haren","doi":"10.1186/s12888-025-06949-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the last decade, there has been considerable development in precision psychiatry, especially in the development of novel prediction tools that can be used for early prediction of the risk of developing a severe mental disorder such as schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder. Although the clinical efficiency of those tools is still unclear it is crucial to consider the future ethical and social consequences of their clinical use before they are used in clinical practice. The literature on this issue is rapidly growing and represents input from scholars from different fields-psychiatrists, bioethicists etc. However, to our knowledge, nobody has produced a review addressing these issues. Therefore, the present study aims to bridge the gap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review, allowing integration of both empirical and non-empirical studies. The research question addressed is: what are the ethical and social issues raised by the potential use of predictive tools for the risk of developing of severe mental disorder identified in the existing empirical and theoretical literature? After developing the search terms, we conducted a search in three electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. For the included articles bibliometric analysis and inductive thematic coding was performed. To ensure the transparency and rigour of this scoping review we followed he Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of the included articles was performed using Atlas.ti.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening, evaluation for eligibility and citation tracing 129 publications were included in the scoping review. The articles represent a wide range of fields of research-clinical psychology, general medicine, neuroscience, genetics, clinical genetics, psychiatry and mental health, philosophy, ethics, etc. The majority of the articles (83) are theoretical studies, 35 papers report results of empirical research and 11 are review papers. Qualitative thematic analysis of the included articles revealed four main themes: 1) Potential benefits and harms; 2) Rights and responsibilities; 3) Counselling, education and communication; 4) Ethical issues in different applications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The articles included in the review cover a wide variety of concerns that might be raised when implementing predictive tools for the risk of developing of severe mental disorder. However, some important gaps in the literature are indicated. First, there are issues that should deserve more attention than they have received thus far (clinical utility, extensive or mandatory use). In several cases there is no empirical knowledge that determines whether particular concerns are justified (stigmatisation, use of machine learning algorithms).</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":"25 1","pages":"501"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12087066/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical and social issues in prediction of risk of severe mental illness: a scoping review and thematic analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ivars Neiders, Signe Mežinska, Neeltje E M van Haren\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12888-025-06949-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the last decade, there has been considerable development in precision psychiatry, especially in the development of novel prediction tools that can be used for early prediction of the risk of developing a severe mental disorder such as schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder. Although the clinical efficiency of those tools is still unclear it is crucial to consider the future ethical and social consequences of their clinical use before they are used in clinical practice. The literature on this issue is rapidly growing and represents input from scholars from different fields-psychiatrists, bioethicists etc. However, to our knowledge, nobody has produced a review addressing these issues. Therefore, the present study aims to bridge the gap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review, allowing integration of both empirical and non-empirical studies. The research question addressed is: what are the ethical and social issues raised by the potential use of predictive tools for the risk of developing of severe mental disorder identified in the existing empirical and theoretical literature? After developing the search terms, we conducted a search in three electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. For the included articles bibliometric analysis and inductive thematic coding was performed. To ensure the transparency and rigour of this scoping review we followed he Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of the included articles was performed using Atlas.ti.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening, evaluation for eligibility and citation tracing 129 publications were included in the scoping review. The articles represent a wide range of fields of research-clinical psychology, general medicine, neuroscience, genetics, clinical genetics, psychiatry and mental health, philosophy, ethics, etc. The majority of the articles (83) are theoretical studies, 35 papers report results of empirical research and 11 are review papers. Qualitative thematic analysis of the included articles revealed four main themes: 1) Potential benefits and harms; 2) Rights and responsibilities; 3) Counselling, education and communication; 4) Ethical issues in different applications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The articles included in the review cover a wide variety of concerns that might be raised when implementing predictive tools for the risk of developing of severe mental disorder. However, some important gaps in the literature are indicated. First, there are issues that should deserve more attention than they have received thus far (clinical utility, extensive or mandatory use). In several cases there is no empirical knowledge that determines whether particular concerns are justified (stigmatisation, use of machine learning algorithms).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9029,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"501\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12087066/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06949-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06949-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在过去的十年中,精确精神病学有了相当大的发展,特别是在新的预测工具的发展,可用于早期预测发展为严重精神障碍的风险,如精神分裂症,抑郁症,双相情感障碍。尽管这些工具的临床效率尚不清楚,但在临床实践中使用它们之前,考虑其临床使用的未来伦理和社会后果至关重要。关于这个问题的文献正在迅速增长,并代表了来自不同领域的学者——精神病学家、生物伦理学家等——的投入。然而,据我们所知,还没有人发表过针对这些问题的评论。因此,本研究旨在弥补这一差距。方法:我们进行了范围审查,允许整合实证和非实证研究。研究的问题是:在现有的经验和理论文献中确定的严重精神障碍发展风险的预测工具的潜在使用引起了什么伦理和社会问题?在确定搜索词后,我们在三个电子数据库中进行了搜索:Scopus、Web of Science和PubMed。对纳入的文章进行文献计量分析和归纳主题编码。为了确保范围评价的透明度和严谨性,我们遵循了范围评价的系统评价和元分析扩展首选报告项目(PRISMA-ScR)。使用atlas .ti对纳入的文章进行定性归纳专题分析。结果:经过筛选、合格性评估和引文追踪,129篇出版物被纳入范围综述。这些文章代表了广泛的研究领域——临床心理学、普通医学、神经科学、遗传学、临床遗传学、精神病学和心理健康、哲学、伦理学等。83篇为理论研究,35篇为实证研究结果,11篇为综述性论文。对纳入的文章进行定性专题分析,揭示了四个主题:1)潜在的利益和危害;2)权利与责任;3)辅导、教育、沟通;4)不同应用中的伦理问题。结论:综述中包含的文章涵盖了在实施严重精神障碍风险预测工具时可能提出的各种问题。然而,指出了文献中一些重要的空白。首先,有一些问题应该得到比迄今为止更多的关注(临床效用,广泛或强制使用)。在一些情况下,没有经验知识来确定特定的担忧是否合理(污名化、使用机器学习算法)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethical and social issues in prediction of risk of severe mental illness: a scoping review and thematic analysis.

Background: Over the last decade, there has been considerable development in precision psychiatry, especially in the development of novel prediction tools that can be used for early prediction of the risk of developing a severe mental disorder such as schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder. Although the clinical efficiency of those tools is still unclear it is crucial to consider the future ethical and social consequences of their clinical use before they are used in clinical practice. The literature on this issue is rapidly growing and represents input from scholars from different fields-psychiatrists, bioethicists etc. However, to our knowledge, nobody has produced a review addressing these issues. Therefore, the present study aims to bridge the gap.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review, allowing integration of both empirical and non-empirical studies. The research question addressed is: what are the ethical and social issues raised by the potential use of predictive tools for the risk of developing of severe mental disorder identified in the existing empirical and theoretical literature? After developing the search terms, we conducted a search in three electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. For the included articles bibliometric analysis and inductive thematic coding was performed. To ensure the transparency and rigour of this scoping review we followed he Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of the included articles was performed using Atlas.ti.

Results: After screening, evaluation for eligibility and citation tracing 129 publications were included in the scoping review. The articles represent a wide range of fields of research-clinical psychology, general medicine, neuroscience, genetics, clinical genetics, psychiatry and mental health, philosophy, ethics, etc. The majority of the articles (83) are theoretical studies, 35 papers report results of empirical research and 11 are review papers. Qualitative thematic analysis of the included articles revealed four main themes: 1) Potential benefits and harms; 2) Rights and responsibilities; 3) Counselling, education and communication; 4) Ethical issues in different applications.

Conclusions: The articles included in the review cover a wide variety of concerns that might be raised when implementing predictive tools for the risk of developing of severe mental disorder. However, some important gaps in the literature are indicated. First, there are issues that should deserve more attention than they have received thus far (clinical utility, extensive or mandatory use). In several cases there is no empirical knowledge that determines whether particular concerns are justified (stigmatisation, use of machine learning algorithms).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信