Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30779308›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics2019

Ethical implications of using biobanks and population databases for genetic suicide research.

Jess Shade, Hilary Coon, Anna R Docherty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A call for an ethical framework when using social media data for artificial intelligence applications in public health research.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2020
    Article
  5. Suicide Risk Assessment and Prevention: Challenges and Opportunities.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2020
    Review
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

3 authors.

Jess ShadeDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Hilary CoonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Anna R DochertyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.ORCID 0000-0001-7139-7007

Funding

Genetic analysis of high-risk Utah suicide pedigreesR01MH099134 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI COON, HILARY · 2013 to 2017
$3.9M
Genetic risk discovery using WGS from a population-based resource of 10,000 suicide deaths with DNAR01MH122412 · NIMH · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Hilary Coon · 2020 to 2026
$2.7M
Modeling Dimensionality and Genetic Heterogeneity in SchizophreniaK01MH109765 · NIMH · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI DOCHERTY, ANNA R. · 2016 to 2019
$675k
Integrating Genomic and Environmental Perspectives on Internalizing DisordersK01MH093731 · NIMH · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI ADKINS, DANIEL E · 2011 to 2015
$649k
American Foundation for Suicide PreventionBrain & Behavior Research Foundation Young Investigator AwardNIMH NIH HHS K01 MH093731NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH109765NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH099134NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH122412University of Utah EDGE Scholar Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article provides a review of the ethical considerations that drive research policy and practice related to the genetic study of suicide. As the tenth cause of death worldwide, suicide constitutes a substantial public health concern. Biometrical studies and population-based molecular genetic studies provide compelling evidence of the utility of investigating genetic underpinnings of suicide. International, federal, and institutional policies regulating research are explored through the lenses of the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Trapped between the Common Rule's definition of human subjects, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's protected information, suicide decedent data occupy an ethical gray area fraught with jurisdictional, legal, and social implications. Two avenues of research, biobanks and psychological autopsies, provide tangible application for the ethical principles examining the risks to participants and their families. Additionally, studies surveying public opinion about research methods, especially broad consent, are explored. Our approach of applying the four ethical principles to policy, sample collection, data storage, and secondary research applications can also be applied to genetic research with other populations. We conclude that broad consent for secondary research, as well as next-of-kin at the time of autopsy, serve to satisfy privacy and confidentiality under the ethical principle of autonomy. We recommend ongoing ethical evaluation of research policy and practice.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksConfidentialityDatabases, GeneticGenetic ResearchHumansPersonal AutonomyPrivacyPublic HealthSuicideSuicide PreventionUnited Statesepidemiologyethicsfederal policygeneticsHIPAAsuicide

Identifiers

PMID30779308
PMCPMC6717044

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.