David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):1-4 (2013)
BackgroundDue to the important role of depression in major illnesses, screening measures for depression are commonly used in medical research. The protocol for managing participants with positive screens is unclear and raises ethical concerns. The aim of this article is to identify and critically discuss the ethical issues that arise when a positive screen for depression is detected, and offer some guidance on managing these issues.DiscussionDeciding on whether to report positive screens to healthcare practitioners is both an ethical and a pragmatic dilemma. Evidence suggests that reporting positive depression screens should only be considered in the context of collaborative care. Possible adverse effects, such as the impact of false-positive results, potentially inappropriate labelling, and potentially inappropriate treatment also need to be considered. If possible, the psychometric properties of the selected screening measure should be determined in the target population, and a threshold for depression that minimises the rate of false-positive results should be chosen. It should be clearly communicated to practitioners that screening scores are not diagnostic for depression, and they should be informed about the diagnostic accuracy of the measure. Research participants need to be made aware of the consequences of the detection of high scores on screening measures, and to be fully informed about the implications of the research protocol.SummaryFurther research is needed and the experiences of researchers, participants, and practitioners need to be collated before the value of reporting positive screens for depression can be ascertained. In developing research protocols, the ethical challenges highlighted should be considered. Participants must be agreeable to the agreed protocol and efforts should be made to minimise potentially adverse effects
|Keywords||Depression Screening Ethics Research|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
E. Angell & M. Dixon-Woods (2009). Do Research Ethics Committees Identify Process Errors in Applications for Ethical Approval? Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):130-132.
Paul S. Appelbaum & Charles W. Lidz (2006). Re-Evaluating the Therapeutic Misconception: Response to Miller and Joffe. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (4):367-373.
A. V. Campbell, S. A. M. McLean, K. Gutridge & H. Harper (2008). Human Tissue Legislation: Listening to the Professionals. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (2):104-108.
C. M. Seiler, P. Kellmeyer, P. Kienle, M. W. Buchler & H.-P. Knaebel (2007). Assessment of the Ethical Review Process for Non-Pharmacological Multicentre Studies in Germany on the Basis of a Randomised Surgical Trial. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (2):113-118.
Michael Steinmann (2009). Under the Pretence of Autonomy: Contradictions in the Guidelines for Human Tissue Donation. [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (3):281-289.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Aisling Sheehan & Hannah McGee (2013). Screening for Depression in Medical Research: Ethical Challenges and Recommendations. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):1-4.
Aisling M. Sheehan & Hannah McGee (2013). Screening for Depression in Medical Research: Ethical Challenges and Recommendations. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):4-.
M. Ratcliffe (2012). Varieties of Temporal Experience in Depression. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (2):114-138.
Annette L. Stanton, Eileen J. Burker & David Kershaw (1991). Effects of Researcher Follow-Up of Distressed Subjects: Tradeoff Between Validity and Ethical Responsibility? Ethics and Behavior 1 (2):105 – 112.
Lisa S. Parker & Valerie B. Satkoske (2012). Ethical Dimensions of Disparities in Depression Research and Treatment in the Pharmacogenomic Era. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):886-903.
Anya Plutynski (2012). Ethical Issues in Cancer Screening and Prevention. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (3):310-323.
George Graham (1990). Melancholic Epistemology. Synthese 82 (3):399-422.
Timothy J. Strauman (1999). Is Depression a Dysfunction in Self-Regulating the Brain/Behavior System for Approach? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):536-537.
Jin Seong Park & Jean M. Grow (2008). The Social Reality of Depression: Dtc Advertising of Antidepressants and Perceptions of the Prevalence and Lifetime Risk of Depression. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 79 (4):379 - 393.
R. H. Dees & J. M. Kwon (2013). The Ethics of Krabbe Newborn Screening. Public Health Ethics 6 (1):114-128.
Jacquelyn E. Humphrey & Darren D. Lee (2011). Australian Socially Responsible Funds: Performance, Risk and Screening Intensity. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 102 (4):519-535.
Jennifer M. Jørgensen, Paula L. Hedley, Mickey Gjerris & Michael Christiansen (2014). Ethical Issues Related to Screening for Preeclampsia. Bioethics 28 (7):360-367.
Sandra T. Sigmon, Kelly J. Rohan, Diana Dorhofer, Lisa A. Hotovy, Peter C. Trask & Nina Boulard (1997). Effects of Consent Form Information on Self-Disclosure. Ethics and Behavior 7 (4):299 – 310.
Vivien Runnels, Elizabeth Hay, Elyse Sevigny & Paddi O’Hara (2009). The Ethics of Conducting Community-Engaged Homelessness Research. Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):57-68.
Niels Nijsingh (2013). Krabbe Newborn Screening: The Issue of Informed Consent. Public Health Ethics 6 (1):126-128.
Added to index2012-08-09
Total downloads10 ( #205,505 of 1,696,181 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #239,057 of 1,696,181 )
How can I increase my downloads?