Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by Yanos, P. T. Articles by Greene, C. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by Yanos, P. T. Articles by Greene, C. S. Informed Consent Research Design, Methodology Related Article

Research Risk for Persons With Psychiatric Disorders: A Decisional Framework to Meet the Ethical Challenge

Dr. Yanos and Dr. Stanley are affiliated with the Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 445 W. 59th St., New York, NY 10019 (e-mail: pyanos{at}jjay.cuny.edu). Dr. Stanley is also with the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City. Ms. Greene is with the Children's Aid Society, New York City.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of consensus on how to evaluate the risk of research studies conducted with persons who have psychiatric disorders. The authors reviewed research on vulnerability, risk, and procedures to mitigate risk in studies with this population to help inform evaluation of such research. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE (1966–2006), PsycINFO (1967–2006), and Google Scholar used combinations of the terms mental illness, vulnerable, psychiatric, schizophrenia, and depression combined with terms such as research risk, vulnerability, research harm, capacity, risk, and mitigation of risk. Articles were identified from reference lists, and additional searches used terms from identified articles. RESULTS: Evidence for two types of vulnerability—capacity based and power based—is presented, which supports the notion of vulnerability as a state, rather than a trait, among persons with psychiatric disorders. Three categories of risk are described—minimal risk, minor increment over minimal risk, and greater than minor increment. Evidence shows that many common types of studies pose risk in the first two categories when conducted with this population. The literature also describes procedures for reducing vulnerability and mitigating risk that should be considered in study evaluations. The authors offer a framework for evaluating the category of risk posed by a study. CONCLUSIONS: Although more research is needed, there is sufficient evidence that many common types of research present minimal risk or only a minor increment over minimal risk for large segments of the population of persons with psychiatric disorders, as they do for persons in the general population.

Related Article:

March 2009: This Month's Highlights
Psychiatr Serv 2009 60: 285. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Goldman, L. B. Dixon, D. A. Adler, J. Berlant, R. A. Dulit, A. Hackman, D. W. Oslin, S. G. Siris, and M. Valenstein Rational Protection of Subjects in Research and Quality Improvement Activities Psychiatr Serv, February 1, 2010; 61(2): 180 - 183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2009 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us