↓ Skip to main content

Predictive Psychiatric Genetic Testing in Minors: An Exploration of the Non-Medical Benefits

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Predictive Psychiatric Genetic Testing in Minors: An Exploration of the Non-Medical Benefits
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11673-017-9828-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arianna Manzini, Danya F. Vears

Abstract

Predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to psychiatric conditions is likely to become part of standard practice. Because the onset of most psychiatric diseases is in late adolescence or early adulthood, testing minors could lead to early identification that may prevent or delay the development of these disorders. However, due to their complex aetiology, psychiatric genetic testing does not provide the immediate medical benefits that current guidelines require for testing minors. While several authors have argued non-medical benefits may play a crucial role in favour of predictive testing for other conditions, little research has explored such a role in psychiatric disorders. This paper outlines the potential non-medical benefits and harms of psychiatric genetic testing in minors in order to consider whether the non-medical benefits could ever make such testing appropriate. Five non-medical themes arise in the literature: psychological impacts, autonomy/self-determination, implications of the biomedical approach, use of financial and intellectual resources, and discrimination. Non-medical benefits were prominent in all of them, suggesting that psychiatric genetic testing in minors may be appropriate in some circumstances. Further research needs to empirically assess these potential non-medical benefits, incorporate minors in the debate, and include normative reflection to evaluate the very purposes and motivations of psychiatric genetic testing in minors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 27%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 30%
Psychology 8 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,434,604
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#100
of 660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,654
of 453,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 453,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.