Evaluating psychiatry journals' adherence to informed consent guidelines for case reports

Area of Science:

• Psychiatry
• Medical Ethics
• Scientific Publishing

Background:

• Case reports are vital in psychiatry for illustrating complex scenarios and interventions.
• Patient confidentiality and informed consent are paramount, especially in sensitive mental health topics.
• Existing guidance from the CAse REports (CARE) Guidelines and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) addresses these issues.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the adherence of indexed psychiatry journals to ethical guidelines regarding informed consent and de-identification in case reports.
• To evaluate the extent to which journals reference and implement the CARE and COPE guidelines.

Main Methods:

• A cross-sectional analysis of author instructions from 253 indexed psychiatry journals was conducted.
• The study focused on 129 journals that had published English-language case reports within the preceding five years.
• Journals' requirements for informed consent and de-identification were systematically identified and evaluated.

Main Results:

• A significant portion of journals (65%) referenced COPE guidelines, and 46% referenced CARE guidelines.
• Journal policies on informed consent and de-identification varied widely, with 31% lacking explicit instructions.
• Among journals requiring consent, 85% mandated documentation, but only 16% required both consent and de-identification for identifying information.

Conclusions:

• Adherence to ethical guidelines for informed consent in psychiatry case reports remains inconsistent a decade after expert recommendations.
• Journals need to provide clearer, more comprehensive instructions on informed consent and de-identification.
• Improved journal policies will enhance publication ethics and uphold patient confidentiality.