Ethical Considerations of Screening and Early Intervention for Clinical High-Risk Psychosis

"It's all about delivery": researchers and health professionals' views on the moral challenges of accessing neurobiological information in the context of psychosis

Background

The convergence of neuroscience, genomics, and data science holds promise to unveil the neurobiology of psychosis and to produce new ways of preventing, diagnosing, and treating psychotic illness. Yet, moral challenges arise in neurobiological research and in the clinical translation of research findings. This article investigates the views of relevant actors in mental health on the moral challenges of accessing neurobiological information in the context of psychosis.

Methods

Semi-structured individual interviews with two groups: researchers employed in the National Health Service (NHS) or a university in England (n = 14), and mental health professionals employed in NHS mental health services (n = 14). This article compares results in the two groups (total n = 28).

Results

This article presents findings around three conceptual areas: (1) research ethics as mostly unproblematic, (2) psychosis, neurobiological information, and mental health care, and (3) identity, relationships, and the future. These areas are drawn from the themes and topics that emerged in the interviews across the two groups of participants. Researchers and health professionals provided similar accounts of the moral challenges of accessing—which includes acquisition, communication, and use of—neurobiological information in the context of psychosis. Acquiring neurobiological information was perceived as mostly unproblematic, provided ethical safeguards are put in place. Conversely, participants argued that substantive moral challenges arise from how neurobiological information is delivered—that is, communicated and used—in research and in clinical care. Neurobiological information was seen as a powerful tool in the process through which individuals define their identity and establish personal and clinical goals. The pervasiveness of this narrative tool may influence researchers and health professionals’ perception of ethical principles and moral obligations.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the moral challenges that arise from accessing neurobiological information in the context of psychosis go beyond traditional research and clinical ethics concerns. Reflecting on how accessing neurobiological information can influence individual self-narratives will be vital to ensure the ethical translation of neuroscience and genomics into mental health.

Trial registration

The study did not involve a health care intervention on human participants. It was retrospectively registered on 11 July 2018, registration number: researchregistry4255.

What constitutes 'good practice' in early intervention for psychosis? Analysis of clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND

Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services have been implemented with the dual aims of preventing harmful outcomes associated with early-onset psychosis and improving prognosis. However, concerns have been raised regarding the ethical implications of involving young people in EIP services. One way to ensure high ethical standards and promote good practice in EIP delivery is through governance of clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the normative dimensions of good practice in EIP through examination of clinical guideline documents published in England over the past 15 years.

METHODS

A total of 14 clinical guidelines and relevant policy documents for EIP were retrieved and analysed using a mixed inductive and deductive thematic approach. Themes were derived from the data itself, whereas the development of broader categories was performed through a constant comparison with the scientific literature describing ethical issues in EIP.

RESULTS

Ethical touchpoints of good practice in EIP included both procedural and substantive factors, which were seen to be interdependent and mutually constitutive. These ethical touchpoints were largely implicit in the documents analysed. Procedural requirements of EIP service delivery consisted of norms and rules pertaining to EIP service structure, adherence to codes of ethics, inclusivity, patient and family centredness and appropriate treatment provision. Substantive factors consisted of moral attributes that should be cultivated by healthcare professionals working in EIP: competency, empathy, sensitivity and trustworthiness.

CONCLUSIONS

We argue that, to ensure good practice in EIP, procedural and substantive ethical expectations embedded in EIP guideline documents should be made explicit in EIP service and care delivery. We suggest that the procedural and substantive factors highlighted in this paper contribute useful dimensions for the eventual evaluation of good practice in EIP services across England.