ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2018
Views of the importance of psychiatric genetic research by potential volunteers from stakeholder groups.
Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceived protectiveness of research safeguards and influences on willingness to participate in research: A novel MTurk pilot study.Journal of psychiatric research · 2021Article
- Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Article
- Perspectives of psychiatric investigators and IRB chairs regarding benefits of psychiatric genetics research.Journal of psychiatric research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Few studies have explored potential volunteers' attitudes toward genetic research. To address this gap in the literature, we developed an empirical project to document views held by individuals who may wish to enroll in genetic studies involving mental disorders. People living with mental illness, family members of people with mental illness, and community comparison volunteers were queried regarding their views on the importance of genetic research generally, in comparison with medical research, and in relation to 12 health conditions categorized in four types. T-tests and univariate and multivariate analysis of variance were used as appropriate. Participants expressed support for the importance of genetic research (mean = 9.43, scale = 1-10) and endorsed genetic research more highly compared with non-genetic medical research (mean = 9.43 vs. 8.69, P value = <0.001). The most highly endorsed genetic research was for cognitive disorders, followed by mental illness disorders, physical illness disorders, and addiction disorders (means = 8.88, 8.26, 8.16 and 7.55, respectively, P value = <0.001). Overall, this study provides evidence of strong endorsement of genetic research over non-genetic research by potential volunteers.
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.