Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40389909›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2025

Ethical and social issues in prediction of risk of severe mental illness: a scoping review and thematic analysis.

Ivars Neiders, Signe Mežinska, Neeltje E M van Haren

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Ivars NeidersUniversity of Latvia, Institute of Clinical and Preventive Medicine, Riga, Latvia.
Signe MežinskaUniversity of Latvia, Institute of Clinical and Preventive Medicine, Riga, Latvia. signe.mezinska@lu.lv.
Neeltje E M van HarenChild and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

Horizon Europe Framework Programme, European Union 101057529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last decade, there has been considerable development in precision psychiatry, especially in the development of novel prediction tools that can be used for early prediction of the risk of developing a severe mental disorder such as schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder. Although the clinical efficiency of those tools is still unclear it is crucial to consider the future ethical and social consequences of their clinical use before they are used in clinical practice. The literature on this issue is rapidly growing and represents input from scholars from different fields-psychiatrists, bioethicists etc. However, to our knowledge, nobody has produced a review addressing these issues. Therefore, the present study aims to bridge the gap.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review, allowing integration of both empirical and non-empirical studies. The research question addressed is: what are the ethical and social issues raised by the potential use of predictive tools for the risk of developing of severe mental disorder identified in the existing empirical and theoretical literature? After developing the search terms, we conducted a search in three electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. For the included articles bibliometric analysis and inductive thematic coding was performed. To ensure the transparency and rigour of this scoping review we followed he Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of the included articles was performed using Atlas.ti.

resultsAfter screening, evaluation for eligibility and citation tracing 129 publications were included in the scoping review. The articles represent a wide range of fields of research-clinical psychology, general medicine, neuroscience, genetics, clinical genetics, psychiatry and mental health, philosophy, ethics, etc. The majority of the articles (83) are theoretical studies, 35 papers report results of empirical research and 11 are review papers. Qualitative thematic analysis of the included articles revealed four main themes: 1) Potential benefits and harms; 2) Rights and responsibilities; 3) Counselling, education and communication; 4) Ethical issues in different applications.

conclusionsThe articles included in the review cover a wide variety of concerns that might be raised when implementing predictive tools for the risk of developing of severe mental disorder. However, some important gaps in the literature are indicated. First, there are issues that should deserve more attention than they have received thus far (clinical utility, extensive or mandatory use). In several cases there is no empirical knowledge that determines whether particular concerns are justified (stigmatisation, use of machine learning algorithms).

Indexed as

Mental DisordersHumansRisk AssessmentArtificial intelligenceEthicsIntergenerational transmissionMental illnessRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID40389909
PMCPMC12087066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.