ReviewPhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2014
Informed consent in the psychosis prodrome: ethical, procedural and cultural considerations.
Review in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consenting practices to enhance comprehension in research involving individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder in Uganda: a qualitative inquiry.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Ethical challenges researchers encounter during the informed consent processes for research involving people with schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder: a qualitative assessment.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Ethical and social issues in prediction of risk of severe mental illness: a scoping review and thematic analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Psychosis, vulnerability, and the moral significance of biomedical innovation in psychiatry. Why ethicists should join efforts.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- European Psychiatric Association policy paper on ethical aspects in communication with patients and their families.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2020Article
- The benefit of foresight? An ethical evaluation of predictive testing for psychosis in clinical practice.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2020Article
- Ethical Challenges in the Primary Prevention of Schizophrenia.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research focused on the prodromal period prior to the onset of psychosis is essential for the further development of strategies for early detection, early intervention, and disease pre-emption. Such efforts necessarily require the enrollment of individuals who are at risk of psychosis but have not yet developed a psychotic illness into research and treatment protocols. This work is becoming increasingly internationalized, which warrants special consideration of cultural differences in conceptualization of mental illness and international differences in health care practices and rights regarding research participation. The process of identifying and requesting informed consent from individuals at elevated risk for psychosis requires thoughtful communication about illness risk and often involves the participation of family members. Empirical studies of risk reasoning and decisional capacity in young people and individuals with psychosis suggest that most individuals who are at-risk for psychosis can adequately provide informed consent; however ongoing improvements to tools and procedures are important to ensure that this work proceeds with maximal consideration of relevant ethical issues. This review provides a discussion of these issues in the context of international research efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.