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

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.

Do human subject safeguards matter to potential participants in psychiatric genetic research?

Despite longstanding concerns about the adequacy of human research protections in mental illness investigations, minimal work has focused on the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding these safeguards. This investigation examined the perspectives of potential research participants regarding safeguards for psychiatric genetic research. Individuals with mental illness (n = 71), first-degree family members of individuals with mental illness (n = 54), and individuals with no personal or close family history of mental illness (n = 57) provided responses to items regarding perceptions of: 1) protectiveness of a range of research safeguards in genetic research on mental illness; 2) influence of these safeguards on research participation decision-making; and 3) importance of these safeguards depending on the nature of the research (i.e., genetic vs. non-genetic mental illness research; and genetic research on mental illness vs. physical illness). Potential research participants perceived existing safeguard procedures as generally protective. The three groups did not differ in their ratings of protectiveness, with the exception of the safeguard domain of "Informed Consent or Alternative Decision-Making Procedures," which was viewed as more protective by family members of people with mental illness than by individuals with mental illness or comparison participants. Safeguard procedures were perceived as strongly influential with respect to willingness to enroll in psychiatric genetic research. These findings suggest that the presence of safeguards positively influences enrollment decision-making by research volunteers and indicate that potential psychiatric genetic research participants find safeguards to be protective, underscoring the responsibility to implement safeguard practices conscientiously.