Psychosocial implications of living with familial risk of a psychiatric disorder and attitudes to psychiatric genetic testing: A systematic review of the literature.

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing evidence documenting the psychosocial implications of living with a familial risk of an adult-onset psychiatric disorder. Six databases were searched systematically to identify qualitative and quantitative studies, which explored perspectives of those at increased risk for psychiatric disorders, as well as the general public. Thematic analysis was used to identify major themes. Thirty-five articles met the eligibility criteria and reported on the views of 4,896 participants. The literature demonstrates strong interest in psychiatric genetic testing of adults as well as children, whereas attitudes toward prenatal testing were much less positive. Predictors of interest in testing, as well as perceived advantages and disadvantages were identified. Very few studies are available on anticipated and actual reactions to receiving results. Studies show that the majority of participants feel that having a genetic explanation would alleviate some of the stigma associated with mental illness. This review shows that interest in, and predictors of attitudes toward, psychiatric genetic testing are well researched, but the extent to which attitudes will translate into actual testing uptake is unknown. Future research also needs to assess the actual behavioral and psychological impact of genetic testing.

Exploration of experiences with and understanding of polygenic risk scores for bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) summarise genetic risk in complex genetic disorders such as bipolar disorder (BD). The aim of this study was to gain in-depth, nuanced information regarding the understanding and experience of receiving a PRS for BD from individuals who already have a BD diagnosis. METHODS: Participants from a previous genetics study were invited to receive their PRS in a face-to-face consultation with a genetic counsellor or psychiatrist. Four weeks later, semi-structured interviews were conducted, with 14 'acceptors' (those who chose to receive their PRS) and 4 'decliners' (those who did not wish to receive their PRS). RESULTS: Four themes were developed: (1) An easy decision, (2) A positive experience, (3) The grey area, and (4) The future is exciting and frightening. Despite some reported initial shock and distress, all acceptors described the experience of receiving their PRS as a positive one. It allowed them to better understand their condition and/or reduced feelings of self-blame. Decliners chose not to receive their results because of a lack of perceived usefulness or concern that PRS may hinder personal recovery. LIMITATIONS: Given the qualitative design of the study, statistically valid generalisations cannot be undertaken, nor can causal relationships be established. CONCLUSIONS: PRS for BD were generally well accepted and understood. Knowledge regarding the impact of PRS for BD ensures that counselling frameworks are responsive to patient needs as well as informing education for psychiatrists and genetic counsellors, who will play pivotal roles in future polygenic testing provision.