Abstract
The paper discusses issues of psychological assessment of biobank donors. Biobanks are regarded as a relatively new institution and technology for scientific research in the field of genomics and biomedicine. Studying of molecular-genetic bases of human behavior, mental characteristics, and disorders, as well as developing
of a new direction of “personalized medicine” touch upon psychological aspects. The increasing role of information technology makes it possible to carry out distributed research, share results, enables openness and harmonization of projects, as well as leads to the deindividualization of research in the form of working with large data sets. These provisions determine the specificity of Biobanks. The authors established the presence of specific problems in the field of psychological assessment of donors and distinguishing important project characteristics. In most cases, donors undergo the assessment using the specially developed questionnaires of a Biobank.
The paper describes the main features and limitations of the existing approaches to the assessment of donors. The factors determining these features included a type and objectives of Biobanks, scientific requirements for research, harmonization and standardization of procedures, economic, and ethical and legal aspects of psychological assessment. The authors emphasized the importance of a systematic
approach to assessing psychological characteristics and disorders, their differential description, description of the environmental influences, as well as the design of the study. Creating the model of a phenotypic description of the donor is the result of a compromise between different factors influencing the successful work Biobanks.
In this regard, at the stage of its creation the authors suggest to distinguish questions of high priority, which set the framework characteristics of the project, and questions of a second order, which fall within the competence of specialists in different fields.
References
Varkhotov T. A., Gavrilenko S. M., Stambol'skii D. V., Ogorodova L. M., Bryzgalina E. V., Alasaniia K. Iu. Zadachi sotsial'no-gumanitarnogo soprovozhdeniia sozdaniia natsional'nogo banka-depozitariia biomaterialov v Rossii [Problems of socio-humanitarian support for the establishment of a national Depository Bank of biomaterials in Russia]. Voprosy filosofii – Approaches to Philosophy, 2016, no. 3, pp. 124–138.
Boosma D., Vink J., Toos C., Bejsterveldt G., et al. Netherlands Twin Register: a focus on longitudinal research. Twin Research, 2002, V. 5, pp. 401–406. doi:10.1375/136905202320906174
Dodge K., Rutter M. Genes, environments, and public policy. Gene–environment interactions in developmental psychopathology. K. Dodge & M. Rutter [Eds.]. N. Y.: The Guilford Press, 2011, pp. 258–276.
Fortier I., Burton P., Robson P., Ferretti V., et al. Quality, quantity and harmony: the DataSHaPER approach to integrating data across bioclinical studies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2010, 39 (5), pp. 1383–93. doi:10.1093/ije/dyq139
Frye M., McElroy S., Fuentes M., et al. Development of a bipolar disorder biobank. International Journal of Bipolar Disorders, 2015, 3 (14). doi:10.1186/s40345-015-0030-4
Gottesman I., Gould T. The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 2003, V. 160, pp. 636–645. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.4.636
Hamilton C., Strader L., Pratt J. G., Meise D., et al. The PhenX toolkit: Get the most from your measures. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2011, no. 3, pp. 253–260. doi:10.1093/aje/kwr193
Henderson G., Cadigan R., Edwards T., Conlon I., et al. Characterizing biobank organizations in the U. S.: results from a national survey. Genome Medicine, 2013, 5 (1), 3. doi:10.1186/gm407
Leitsalu L., Haller T., Esko T., Tammesoo M., et al. Cohort Profile: Estonian Biobank of the Estonian Genome Center, University of Tartu. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2015, 44 (4), pp. 1137–47. doi:10.1093/ije/dyt268
Liu A., Pollard K. Biobanking for personalized medicine in the age of new biology. Biobanking in the 21st Century. F. Karimi-Busheri [Ed.]. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015, pp. 55–68. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20579-3
McCarty C., Huggins W., Aiello A., Bilder R., et al. PhenX RISING: real world implementation and sharing of PhenX measures. BMC Med Genomics, 2014, 20 (7). doi:10.1186/1755-8794-7-16
O’Neill S. Public health genomics. Handbook of genomics and the family: Psychosocial context for children and adolescents. K. P. Tercyak [Ed.]. N. Y., U. S.: Springer, 2010, pp. 577–593. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5800-6_23
Oldehinkel A., Rosmalen J., Buitelaar J., Hoek H., et al. Cohort Profile Update: The TRacking Adolescents’ Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS). International Journal of Epidemiology, 2015, V. 44, pp. 76–76. doi:10.1093/ije/dyu225
Ransohoff D. How to improve reliability and efficiency of research about molecular markers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2007, 60 (12), pp. 1205–1219. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.020
Ravid R. The uniqueness of biobanks for neurological and psychiatric diseases: potentials and pitfalls. Pathobiology, 2014, no. 5–6, pp. 237–244. doi:10.1159/000369886
Roberts J., Karvonen Ch., Grahamm K., et al. Biobanking in the XXI Century: driving population metrics into biobank quality. Biobanking in the 21st Century. F. Karimi-Busheri [Ed.]. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015, pp. 95–112. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20579-3
Scholtens S., Smidt N., Swertz M., Bakker S., et al. Cohort Profile: LifeLines, a three-generation cohort study and biobank. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2014, no. 44 (4), pp. 1172–1180. doi:10.1093/ije/dyu229
Shaw D. M., Elger B. S., Colledge F. What is a biobank? Differing definitions among biobank stakeholders. Clinical Genetics, 2014, no. 3, pp. 223–227. doi:10.1111/cge.12268
UK Biobank: Protocol for a large-scale prospective epidemiological resource. URL: http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/UK-Biobank-Protocol.pdf