Cited by 57Schizophrenia research and treatmentEthics and bioethics in healthcareHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints

Ethical, Legal, and Clinical Considerations when Disclosing a High‐Risk Syndrome for Psychosis

Mittal, Vijay A., Dean, Derek J., Mittal, Jyoti, Saks, Elyn R.·2015·Bioethics

Abstract

There are complex considerations when planning to disclose an attenuated psychosis syndrome (APS) diagnosis. In this review, we evaluate ethical, legal, and clinical perspectives as well as caveats related to full, non‐ and partial disclosure strategies, discuss societal implications, and provide clinical suggestions. Each of the disclosure strategies is associated with benefits as well as costs/considerations. Full disclosure promotes autonomy, allows for the clearest psychoeducation about additional risk factors, helps to clarify and/or correct previous diagnoses/treatments, facilitates early intervention and bolsters communication between providers but there are important considerations involving heritability, comorbidity, culture, and stigma. Non‐disclosure advances nonmaleficence by limiting stigma and stress (which may inadvertently exacerbate the condition), and confusion (related to the rapidly evolving diagnosis) in a sensitive developmental period but is complicated by varying patient preferences and the possibility that, as new treatments without adverse effects become available, the risk with false positives no longer justifies the accompanying loss of autonomy. Partial disclosure balances ethical considerations by focusing on symptoms instead of labels, but evidence that laypersons may interpret this information as a pseudo‐diagnosis and that symptoms alone also contribute to stigma limits the efficacy of this approach. In addition, there are notable societal considerations relating to disclosure involving conservatorship, the reach of insurance companies, and discrimination. We advocate a hybrid approach to disclosure and recommend future research aimed at understanding the effects of stigma on clinical course and a renewed focus on those help‐seeking cases that do not transition but remain clinically relevant.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bioe.12155

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The negative consequences of risk or vulnerability labels, together with uncertainty about their prognostic value and the absence of treatment options, cast doubt on whether and how to inform patients about risk.

    “The unwanted consequences of risk/vulnerability labels, in addition to the uncertainty about their prognostic value and the lack of treatment options, cast doubts on the opportunity of informing patients about the risk, and on the best way to do it 154 .”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mittal, V. A., Dean, D. J., Mittal, J., & Saks, E. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Mittal, Vijay A.
Venue
Bioethics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02-17
Volume
29
Issue
8
Pages
543-556
ISSN
  • 0269-9702 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8519
OpenAlex
W1885698623
Cited by
57
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bioethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH094650, R21MH103231)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Keywords
attenuated psychosis syndrome, diagnosis disclosure, non-disclosure, partial disclosure, full disclosure, stigma, patient autonomy, non-maleficence, heritability, comorbidities, cultural factors, insurance discrimination, conservatorship, early intervention, help-seeking
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Cultural Characteristics, Humans, Insurance, Health, Patient Education as Topic, Psychotic Disorders, Risk Factors, Self Concept, Stress, Psychological, Truth Disclosure, Comorbidity, Insurance Coverage, Personal Autonomy, Beneficence, Paternalism, Disclosure, Heredity, Adolescent Development, Patient Preference, Social Stigma, Social Discrimination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review