Bibliometric analysis uncovers trends in ethical issues related to mental disorders, highlighting key areas of focus.
This study aimed to explore key ethical issues related to mental disorders through a bibliometric and cluster-based content analysis of existing academic literature. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Scopus database (Elsevier) up to December 31, 2024, using ethics-and mental disorder-related keywords. The search was limited to English-language journal articles in medicine, psychology, neuroscience, and other related fields. After title and abstract screening, 1,271 articles were included (κ=0.907). Bibliometric analyses including keyword co-occurrence, citation coupling, and country/author mapping were performed using VOSviewer (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University) and Gephi (Gephi Consortium). A cluster-based content analysis was used to interpret the thematic structure of the field. The annual publication volume showed an upward fluctuating trend, with increasing scholarly attention post-1994. Coauthor networks revealed weak centralization, and the core author group remained underdeveloped. Research has been geographically concentrated in North America and Western Europe, particularly in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Keyword analysis identified six major thematic clusters: (1) conceptual foundations and policy frameworks in mental health ethics, (2) ethical challenges in psychiatric care, (3) research ethics, (4) patient autonomy and rights, (5) end-of-life decision-making and palliative ethics, and (6) neuroethics and emerging biomedical technologies. Recent popular topics include artificial intelligence, epistemic injustice, and medical aid for the dying. This study maps the intellectual structure and evolving focus of the ethical discourse on mental health. These findings highlight the need for ethically responsive frameworks that address patient autonomy, technological advancement, and global equity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: