Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35138261›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

An Ethics Checklist for Digital Health Research in Psychiatry: Viewpoint.

Francis X Shen, Benjamin C Silverman, Patrick Monette, Sara Kimble, Scott L Rauch, Justin T Baker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Towards Human-Centered Digital Health Interventions.The Psychiatric clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  3. Digital doppelgangers in psychiatry.Discover mental health · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Rethinking Ethics for an Era of Trusted Computational Tools.The Psychiatric clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Francis X Shen *Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9029-1686
Benjamin C Silverman *Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7781-7375
Patrick MonetteHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0847-7255
Sara KimbleInstitute for Technology in Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7400-3245
Scott L RauchHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7699-6754
Justin T BakerHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6629-2195
Harvard University · USMcLean Hospital · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

Robust Predictors of Mania and PsychosisU01MH116925 · NIMH · MCLEAN HOSPITAL · PI BAKER, JUSTIN T, RAUCH, SCOTT L · 2018 to 2022
$3.2M
NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH116925
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychiatry has long needed a better and more scalable way to capture the dynamics of behavior and its disturbances, quantitatively across multiple data channels, at high temporal resolution in real time. By combining 24/7 data-on location, movement, email and text communications, and social media-with brain scans, genetics, genomics, neuropsychological batteries, and clinical interviews, researchers will have an unprecedented amount of objective, individual-level data. Analyzing these data with ever-evolving artificial intelligence could one day include bringing interventions to patients where they are in the real world in a convenient, efficient, effective, and timely way. Yet, the road to this innovative future is fraught with ethical dilemmas as well as ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI).

objectiveThe goal of the Ethics Checklist is to promote careful design and execution of research. It is not meant to mandate particular research designs; indeed, at this early stage and without consensus guidance, there are a range of reasonable choices researchers may make. However, the checklist is meant to make those ethical choices explicit, and to require researchers to give reasons for their decisions related to ELSI issues. The Ethics Checklist is primarily focused on procedural safeguards, such as consulting with experts outside the research group and documenting standard operating procedures for clearly actionable data (eg, expressed suicidality) within written research protocols.

methodsWe explored the ELSI of digital health research in psychiatry, with a particular focus on what we label "deep phenotyping" psychiatric research, which combines the potential for virtually boundless data collection and increasingly sophisticated techniques to analyze those data. We convened an interdisciplinary expert stakeholder workshop in May 2020, and this checklist emerges out of that dialogue.

resultsConsistent with recent ELSI analyses, we find that existing ethical guidance and legal regulations are not sufficient for deep phenotyping research in psychiatry. At present, there are regulatory gaps, inconsistencies across research teams in ethics protocols, and a lack of consensus among institutional review boards on when and how deep phenotyping research should proceed. We thus developed a new instrument, an Ethics Checklist for Digital Health Research in Psychiatry ("the Ethics Checklist"). The Ethics Checklist is composed of 20 key questions, subdivided into 6 interrelated domains: (1) informed consent; (2) equity, diversity, and access; (3) privacy and partnerships; (4) regulation and law; (5) return of results; and (6) duty to warn and duty to report.

conclusionsDeep phenotyping research offers a vision for vastly more effective care for people with, or at risk for, psychiatric disease. The potential perils en route to realizing this vision are significant; however, and researchers must be willing to address the questions in the Ethics Checklist before embarking on each leg of the journey.

Indexed as

ChecklistPsychiatryArtificial IntelligenceEthics Committees, ResearchHumansInformed ConsentPrivacycomputataional psychiatrydigital phenotypingethicsinformed consentlawprivacy

Identifiers

PMID35138261
PMCPMC8867294
OpenAlexW3211054186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.