Do research procedures pose relatively greater risk for healthy persons than for persons with schizophrenia?

Ethical Practices and Legal Challenges in Mental Health Research

Considerations of justice and concern for well-being support conducting mental health research and addressing ethical concerns specific to mental health research are critical. We discuss these concerns, provide recommendations to enable the ethical conduct of mental health research, and argue that participants' interests should be given primary weight in resolving apparent dilemmas. We also comment on provisions of two legislative actions in India relevant to mental health research: Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016 and the Mental Health Care Act 2017. Both conform to the 2006 United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities of which India is a signatory. Both provide protections and enumerate rights relevant to people with mental health conditions but with differing focus. The commonalities and differences between the three are discussed in the background of international literature on research in mental health conditions. Studies involving deception and future directions for ethical requirements regarding genetic research are discussed.

The exclusion of people with psychiatric disorders from medical research

People with psychiatric disorders are excluded from medical research to an unknown degree with unknown effects. We examined the prevalence of reported psychiatric exclusion criteria using a sample of 400 highly-cited randomized trials (2002-2010) across 20 common chronic disorders (6 psychiatric and 14 other medical disorders). Two coders rated the presence of psychiatric exclusion criteria for each trial. Half of all trials (and 84% of psychiatric disorder treatment trials) reported possible or definite psychiatric exclusion criteria, with significant variation across disorders (p < .001). Non-psychiatric conditions with high rates of reported psychiatric exclusion criteria included low back pain (75%), osteoarthritis (57%), COPD (55%), and diabetes (55%). The most commonly reported type of psychiatric exclusion criteria were those related to substance use disorders (reported in 48% of trials reporting at least one psychiatric exclusion criteria). General psychiatric exclusions (e.g., "any serious psychiatric disorder") were also prevalent (38% of trials). Psychiatric disorder trials were more likely than other medical disorder trials to report each specific type of psychiatric exclusion (p's < .001). Because published clinical trial reports do not always fully describe exclusion criteria, this study's estimates of the prevalence of psychiatric exclusion criteria are conservative. Clinical trials greatly influence state-of-the-art medical care, yet individuals with psychiatric disorders are often actively excluded from these trials. This pattern of exclusion represents an under-recognized and worrisome cause of health inequity. Further attention should be paid to how individuals with psychiatric disorders can be safely included in medical research to address this important clinical and social justice issue.

Ethics in Psychiatric Research: A Review of 25 Years of NIH-funded Empirical Research Projects

BACKGROUND: This paper reviews the past 25 years of empirical research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on matters of ethics in psychiatric research. METHODS: Using the NIH RePORTER and Medline databases, we identified 43 grants and 77 publications that involved the empirical study of a matter of ethics in research involving mental health service users. RESULTS: These articles provide original and useful information on important topics, most especially the capacity to consent and the voluntariness of consent. For example, participants who share a diagnosis vary widely in levels of cognitive impairment that correlate with decisional capacity, and capacity to consent can be enhanced easily using iterative consent processes. Few articles address matters of justice or benefits in research, particularly from the perspectives of participants. No articles address matters of privacy, confidentiality, or researcher professionalism. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the usefulness of data from the studies conducted to date, current research on research ethics in psychiatry does not adequately address the concerns of service users as expressed in recent publications.

Worth the risk? Relationship of incentives to risk and benefit perceptions and willingness to participate in schizophrenia research

OBJECTIVE

Providing incentives for research participation is widely practiced but minimally studied. In schizophrenia research, questions about capacity to consent and potential vulnerability may raise concerns when offering incentives for participation. Despite empirical attention focused on consent and decision-making capacity in schizophrenia, the issue of incentives has been essentially ignored. We examined willingness to participate in research, in relation to perceived risks and benefits, among people with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

METHOD

Forty-six people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder rated perceived risks and benefits of 5 hypothetical research vignettes. They also indicated whether they would be willing to participate at each of 5 incentive levels (including no compensation). Cognition was assessed with Mattis Dementia Rating Scale.

RESULTS

Ratings of risk and potential personal benefit were inversely correlated. For all scenarios, significant correlations were found between perceived risk and willingness to participate for greater compensation. Conversely, lower perceived likelihood of benefit was associated with a higher compensation threshold for participation in each scenario. Even at the highest proffered payment level for each scenario, however, a substantial proportion of respondents were not willing to participate. Risk assessment and willingness to participate (at all levels of compensation) were not associated with demographic variables or cognitive status.

CONCLUSIONS

Determining whether incentives impede voluntarism remains an important task for empirical ethics research. Assessing potential research participants' understanding and perceptions of risks, benefits, and alternatives to participation will help ensure that informed consent fulfills its mission--embodying the ethical principle of respect for persons.

Research risk for persons with psychiatric disorders: a decisional framework to meet the ethical challenge

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of consensus on how to evaluate the risk of research studies conducted with persons who have psychiatric disorders. The authors reviewed research on vulnerability, risk, and procedures to mitigate risk in studies with this population to help inform evaluation of such research.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE (1966-2006), PsycINFO (1967-2006), and Google Scholar used combinations of the terms mental illness, vulnerable, psychiatric, schizophrenia, and depression combined with terms such as research risk, vulnerability, research harm, capacity, risk, and mitigation of risk. Articles were identified from reference lists, and additional searches used terms from identified articles.

RESULTS

Evidence for two types of vulnerability--capacity based and power based--is presented, which supports the notion of vulnerability as a state, rather than a trait, among persons with psychiatric disorders. Three categories of risk are described--minimal risk, minor increment over minimal risk, and greater than minor increment. Evidence shows that many common types of studies pose risk in the first two categories when conducted with this population. The literature also describes procedures for reducing vulnerability and mitigating risk that should be considered in study evaluations. The authors offer a framework for evaluating the category of risk posed by a study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although more research is needed, there is sufficient evidence that many common types of research present minimal risk or only a minor increment over minimal risk for large segments of the population of persons with psychiatric disorders, as they do for persons in the general population.

Research risk for persons with psychiatric disorders: a decisional framework to meet the ethical challenge

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of consensus on how to evaluate the risk of research studies conducted with persons who have psychiatric disorders. The authors reviewed research on vulnerability, risk, and procedures to mitigate risk in studies with this population to help inform evaluation of such research.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE (1966-2006), PsycINFO (1967-2006), and Google Scholar used combinations of the terms mental illness, vulnerable, psychiatric, schizophrenia, and depression combined with terms such as research risk, vulnerability, research harm, capacity, risk, and mitigation of risk. Articles were identified from reference lists, and additional searches used terms from identified articles.

RESULTS

Evidence for two types of vulnerability--capacity based and power based--is presented, which supports the notion of vulnerability as a state, rather than a trait, among persons with psychiatric disorders. Three categories of risk are described--minimal risk, minor increment over minimal risk, and greater than minor increment. Evidence shows that many common types of studies pose risk in the first two categories when conducted with this population. The literature also describes procedures for reducing vulnerability and mitigating risk that should be considered in study evaluations. The authors offer a framework for evaluating the category of risk posed by a study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although more research is needed, there is sufficient evidence that many common types of research present minimal risk or only a minor increment over minimal risk for large segments of the population of persons with psychiatric disorders, as they do for persons in the general population.