Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31268569›Full record

ReviewThe Hastings Center report2019

The Implications of Genetic and Other Biological Explanations for Thinking about Mental Disorders.

Matthew S Lebowitz

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Hastings Center report, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
37.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Psychiatric polygenic risk scores: Child and adolescent psychiatrists' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Return of results in a global survey of psychiatric genetics researchers: practices, attitudes, and knowledge.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Leveraging Neuroscience to Fight Stigma Around Mental Health.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2021
    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

1 author.

Matthew S Lebowitz

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
UNDERSTANDING IMPLICATIONS OF GENETIC ATTRIBUTIONS FOR ADDICTIONR00HG010084 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI LEBOWITZ, MATTHEW · 2020 to 2022
$747k
Understanding Implications of Genetic Attributions for AddictionK99HG010084 · NHGRI · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI LEBOWITZ, MATTHEW · 2018 to 2019
$336k
NHGRI NIH HHS K99 HG010084NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG007257NHGRI NIH HHS R00 HG010084NHGRI NIH HHS RM1 HG007257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the rise of genetic etiological beliefs regarding psychiatric disorders, a growing body of research has focused on trying to elucidate the effects that such explanatory frameworks might be having on how mental disorders are perceived by patients, clinicians, and the general public. Genetic and other biomedical explanations of mental disorders have long been seen as a potential tool in the efforts to destigmatize mental disorders, given the harshness of the widespread negative attitudes about them and the important negative clinical and social impacts of this stigma. The conventional wisdom has appeared to be that because the effects of genes are seen as falling outside individual control, conceiving of mental disorders as caused by genes casts patients as blameless, thereby reducing stigmatization. Indeed, the results of experimental and correlational research have now robustly linked genetic and other biomedical explanations for mental disorders with reductions in the extent to which people are blamed for their psychiatric symptoms. However, research examining the impact of genetic and other biomedical explanations of mental disorders has also suggested that they can have significant downsides. The most consistently observed negative effect of these kinds of explanations is that they can apparently lead to the assumption that mental disorders are unlikely to improve or abate. Genetic and other biomedical explanations of mental disorders can also increase people's confidence in the effectiveness of biomedical treatments (such as pharmacotherapy) but decrease their confidence in the effectiveness of "nonbiomedical" treatments (such as psychotherapy).

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMental DisordersSocial Stigma

Identifiers

PMID31268569
PMCPMC8667266
OpenAlexW2955214696

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.