Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: IItis AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8631566 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cognitive biases refer to automatic attentional or interpretational tendencies, which result in individuals with addictive disorders to automatically attend to substance-related stimuli and those with anxiety disorders to attend to threatening stimuli. To date, several studies have examined the efficacy of cognitive bias modification, and meta-analytical studies have synthesized the evidence for overall efficacy. The clinical utility of cognitive bias modification interventions has previously been limited to the confines of a laboratory, but recent advances in Web technologies can change this. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to determine the scope of Web-based cognitive bias interventions and highlight their effectiveness. METHODS:Databases (PubMed and MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Central) were searched from inception to December 5, 2017. The following search terminologies were used: ("attention bias" OR "cognitive bias" OR "approach bias" OR "avoidance bias" OR "interpretative bias") AND ("Internet" OR "Web" OR "Online"). The methods for this scoping review are based on the previously published protocol. For the synthesis of the evidence, a narrative synthesis was undertaken, as a meta-analysis was not appropriate, given the lack of reported effect sizes and the heterogeneity in the outcomes reported. RESULTS:Of the 2674 unique articles identified, we identified 22 randomized controlled studies that met our inclusion criteria: alcohol use disorder (n=2), tobacco use disorder (n=2), depressive disorder (n=3), anxiety and depressive symptoms in adolescents (n=3), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; n=2), social anxiety disorder (n=9), and anxiety disorder (n=1). The sample sizes of these studies ranged from 16 to 434 participants. There is preliminary evidence to suggest that Web-based interventions could reduce biases among adolescents with heightened symptoms of anxiety and depression and among individuals with OCD. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first scoping review that mapped out the scope of cognitive bias modification interventions for psychiatric disorders. Web-based interventions have been applied predominantly for social anxiety and addictive disorders. Larger cohorts must be used in future studies to better determine the effectiveness of Web-based cognitive bias interventions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):RR1-10.2196/10427.