Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29058960›Full record

ArticleThe International journal of social psychiatry2017

Beneficial and detrimental effects of genetic explanations for addiction.

Matthew S Lebowitz, Paul S Appelbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal of social psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Genetic feedback for psychiatric conditions: Where are we now and where are we going.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Matthew S LebowitzCenter for Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral Genetics, New York, NY, USA Psychiatric Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Paul S AppelbaumCenter for Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral Genetics, New York, NY, USA Psychiatric Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Center for Research on the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral GeneticsP50HG007257 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2013 to 2017
$5.4M
Center for Research on Ethical, Legal & Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral GeneticsRM1HG007257 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2018 to 2021
$4.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG007257NHGRI NIH HHS RM1 HG007257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAddictions are highly stigmatized and increasingly construed as biomedical diseases caused by genes, partly to reduce stigma by deflecting blame. However, genetic explanations may have negative effects, which have been understudied in the context of addiction. How the effects of genetic explanations might differ for substance addictions versus behavioral addictions is also unknown.

aimsThis study examined the impact of genetic explanations for addiction on measures of treatment expectancies, blame, and perceived agency and self-control, as well as whether these varied depending on whether the addiction was to a substance or a behavior.

methodsParticipants read about a person ('Charlie') with either alcohol use disorder or gambling disorder, receiving either a genetic or nongenetic explanation of Charlie's problem. They rated how much they blamed Charlie for his disorder, his likelihood of benefitting from medication or psychotherapy, and how much agency and self-control they ascribed to him.

resultsCompared to the nongenetic explanation, the genetic explanation reduced blame and increased confidence in the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy. However, it also decreased the expected effectiveness of psychotherapy and reduced ascriptions of agency and self-control.

conclusionGenetic explanations for addiction appear to be a 'double-edged sword', with beneficial effects that come at a cost.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthSocial StigmaAdultAgedBehavior, AddictiveFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychotherapySubstance-Related DisordersYoung AdultAddictionagencyblamegenetic etiologytreatment expectancies

Identifiers

PMID29058960
PMCPMC5693609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.