In Defense of "Denial": Difficulty Knowing When Beliefs Are Unrealistic and Whether Unrealistic Beliefs Are Bad

Hope and Optimism in Pediatric Deep Brain Stimulation: Key Stakeholder Perspectives

Introduction

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is utilized to treat pediatric refractory dystonia and its use in pediatric patients is expected to grow. One important question concerns the impact of hope and unrealistic optimism on decision-making, especially in "last resort" intervention scenarios such as DBS for refractory conditions.

Objective

This study examined stakeholder experiences and perspectives on hope and unrealistic optimism in the context of decision-making about DBS for childhood dystonia and provides insights for clinicians seeking to implement effective communication strategies.

Materials and Methods

Semi-structured interviews with clinicians (n = 29) and caregivers (n = 44) were conducted, transcribed, and coded.

Results

Using thematic content analysis, four major themes from clinician interviews and five major themes from caregiver interviews related to hopes and expectations were identified. Clinicians expressed concerns about caregiver false hopes (86%, 25/29) and desperation (68.9%, 20/29) in light of DBS being a last resort. As a result, 68.9% of clinicians (20/29) expressed that they intentionally tried to lower caregiver expectations about DBS outcomes. Clinicians also expressed concern that, on the flip side, unrealistic pessimism drives away some patients who might otherwise benefit from DBS (34.5%, 10/29). Caregivers viewed DBS as the last option that they had to try (61.3%, 27/44), and 73% of caregivers (32/44) viewed themselves as having high hopes but reasonable expectations. Fewer than half (43%, 19/44) expressed that they struggled setting outcome expectations due to the uncertainty of DBS, and 50% of post-DBS caregivers (14/28) expressed some negative feelings post treatment due to unmet expectations. 43% of caregivers (19/44) had experiences with clinicians who tried to set low expectations about the potential benefits of DBS.

Conclusion

Thoughtful clinician-stakeholder discussion is needed to ensure realistic outcome expectations.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Pediatric Dystonia: Clinicians' Perspectives on the Most Pressing Ethical Challenges

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric deep brain stimulation (pDBS) is commonly used to manage treatment-resistant primary dystonias with favorable results and more frequently used for secondary dystonia to improve quality of life. There has been little systematic empirical neuroethics research to identify ethical challenges and potential solutions to ensure responsible use of DBS in pediatric populations.

METHODS

Clinicians (n = 29) who care for minors with treatment-resistant dystonia were interviewed for their perspectives on the most pressing ethical issues in pDBS.

RESULTS

Using thematic content analysis to explore salient themes, clinicians identified four pressing concerns: (1) uncertainty about risks and benefits of pDBS (22/29; 72%) that poses a challenge to informed decision-making; (2) ethically navigating decision-making roles (15/29; 52%), including how best to integrate perspectives from diverse stakeholders (patient, caregiver, clinician) and how to manage surrogate decisions on behalf of pediatric patients with limited capacity to make autonomous decisions; (3) information scarcity effects on informed consent and decision quality (15/29; 52%) in the context of patient and caregivers' expectations for treatment; and (4) narrow regulatory status and access (7/29; 24%) such as the lack of FDA-approved indications that contribute to decision-making uncertainty and liability and potentially limit access to DBS among patients who may benefit from it.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that clinicians are primarily concerned about ethical limitations of making difficult decisions in the absence of informational, regulatory, and financial supports. We discuss two solutions already underway, including supported decision-making to address uncertainty and further data sharing to enhance clinical knowledge and discovery.

Epistemic Beliefs: Relationship to Future Expectancies and Quality of Life in Cancer Patients

CONTEXT

Expectations about the future (future expectancies) are important determinants of psychological well-being among cancer patients, but the strategies patients use to maintain positive and cope with negative expectancies are incompletely understood.

OBJECTIVES

To obtain preliminary evidence on the potential role of one strategy for managing future expectancies: the adoption of "epistemic beliefs" in fundamental limits to medical knowledge.

METHODS

A sample of 1307 primarily advanced-stage cancer patients participating in a genomic tumor testing study in community oncology practices completed measures of epistemic beliefs, positive future expectancies, and mental and physical health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Descriptive and linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between these factors and test two hypotheses: 1) epistemic beliefs affirming fundamental limits to medical knowledge ("fallibilistic epistemic beliefs") are associated with positive future expectancies and mental HRQOL, and 2) positive future expectancies mediate this association.

RESULTS

Participants reported relatively high beliefs in limits to medical knowledge (M = 2.94, s.d.=.67) and positive future expectancies (M = 3.01, s.d.=.62) (range 0-4), and relatively low mental and physical HRQOL. Consistent with hypotheses, fallibilistic epistemic beliefs were associated with positive future expectancies (b = 0.11, SE=.03, P< 0.001) and greater mental HRQOL (b = 0.99, SE=.34, P = 0.004); positive expectancies also mediated the association between epistemic beliefs and mental HRQOL (Sobel Z=4.27, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Epistemic beliefs in limits to medical knowledge are associated with positive future expectancies and greater mental HRQOL; positive expectancies mediate the association between epistemic beliefs and HRQOL. More research is needed to confirm these relationships and elucidate their causal mechanisms.

Moral Distress in Healthcare Providers Who Take Care of Critical Pediatric Patients throughout Italy-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Italian Pediatric Instrument

Background: Although Moral Distress (MD) is a matter of concern within the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), there is no validated Italian instrument for measuring the phenomenon in nurses and physicians who care for pediatric patients in Intensive Care. The authors of the Italian Moral Distress Scale-Revised (Italian MDS-R), validated for the adult setting, in 2017, invited further research to evaluate the generalizability of the scale to clinicians working in other fields. Our study aims to reduce this knowledge gap by developing and validating the pediatric version of the Italian MDS-R. Methods: We evaluated the new instrument for construct validity, then we administered it in a multicenter, web-based survey that involved healthcare providers of three PICUs and three adult ICUs admitting children in northern, central, and southern Italy. Finally, we tested it for internal consistency, confirmatory factorial validity, convergent validity, and differences between groups analysis. Results: The 14-item, three-factor model best fit the data. The scale showed good reliability (a = 0.87). Still, it did not correlate with the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization sub-scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) or with the 2-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 2) or the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). A mild correlation was found between the Italian Pediatric MDS-R score and intention to resign from the job. No correlation was found between MD and years of experience. Females, nurses, and clinicians who cared for COVID-19 patients had a higher MD score. Conclusions: The Italian Pediatric MDS-R is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring MD among Italian health workers who care for critically ill children. Further research would be helpful in better investigating its applicability to the heterogeneous scenario of Italian Pediatric Critical Care Medicine.

Ethical Considerations for Phase I Trials in Oncology

Phase I trials often represent the first occasion where new cancer strategies are tested in patients. Various developments in cancer biology, methodology, regulation, and medical ethics have altered the ethical landscape of such trials. We provide a narrative review of contemporary ethical challenges in design, conduct, and reporting of phase I cancer trials and outline recommendations for addressing each. We organized our review around four topics, supplementing the first three with scoping reviews: (1) benefit/risk, (2) research biopsies, (3) therapeutic misconception and misestimation, and (4) reporting. The main ethical challenges of conducting phase I trials stem from three issues. First, phase I trials often involve higher research burden and scientific uncertainty compared with other cancer trials. Second, many patients arrive at phase I trials at a transitional point in their illness trajectory where they have exhausted standard survival-extending options. Third, phase I trial results play a major role in informing downstream drug development and regulatory decisions. Together, these issues create distinct pressures for study design, ethical review, informed consent, and reporting. Developments in methodology, regulation, cancer biology, and ethical awareness have helped mitigate some of these challenges, while introducing others. We conclude our review with a series of recommendations regarding trial design, ethical review, consent, and reporting. We also outline several unresolved questions that, if addressed, would strengthen the ethical foundation of phase I cancer trials.

Oncologists' reflections on patient rights and access to compassionate use drugs: A qualitative interview study from an academic cancer center

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows patients with serious illnesses to access investigational drugs for "compassionate use" outside of clinical trials through expanded access (EA) Programs. The federal Right-to-Try Act created an additional pathway for non-trial access to experimental drugs without institutional review board or FDA approval. This removal of oversight amplifies the responsibility of physicians, but little is known about the role of practicing physicians in non-trial access to investigational drugs. We undertook semi-structured interviews to capture the experiences and opinions of 21 oncologists all with previous EA experience at a major cancer center. We found five main themes. Participants with greater EA experience reported less difficulty accessing drugs through the myriad of administrative processes and drug company reluctance to provide investigational products while newcomers reported administrative hurdles. Oncologists outlined several rationales patients offered when seeking investigational drugs, including those with stronger health literacy and a good scientific rationale versus others who remained skeptical of conventional medicine. Participants reported that most patients had realistic expectations while some had unrealistic optimism. Given the diverse reasons patients sought investigational drugs, four factors-scientific rationale, risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation-influenced oncologists' decisions to request compassionate use drugs. Physicians struggled with a "right-to-try" framing of patient access to experimental drugs, noting instead their own responsibility to protect patients' best interest in the uncertain and risky process of off-protocol access. This study highlights the willingness of oncologists at a major cancer center to pursue non-trial access to experimental treatments for patients while also shedding light on the factors they use when considering such treatment. Our data reveal discrepancies between physicians' sense of patients' expectations and their own internal sense of professional obligation to shepherd a safe process for patients at a vulnerable point in their care.

Dissonance in views between parents and clinicians of children with serious illness: How can we bridge the gap?

Parents of children with serious illness must find a tolerable way of living each day, while caring for their child and making decisions about their treatments. Sometimes clinicians worry that parents do not understand the seriousness of their child's illness, including possible death. This can lead to tension, disagreement and even conflict. Such situations continue to occur despite expanding literature to help clinicians understand drivers of parental behaviour and decision-making. Some of this literature relates to the role of hope and how parents characterise being a 'good parent'. This article will summarise some of the applications and limitations of the hope and 'good parent' literature, as well as frameworks to understand grief and loss. We propose, however, that there is at least one missing link in understanding potential dissonance in views between parents and clinicians. We will make a case for the importance of a richer understanding about if, and how, parents 'visit' the 'reality' that clinicians wish to convey about their child's diagnosis and prognosis. We propose that clinician understanding about the benefits and burdens of 'visiting' this 'reality' for an individual family may help guide conversations and rapport, which in turn may influence decision-making with benefits for the child, family and clinicians.

Optimism bias in understanding neonatal prognoses

OBJECTIVE

Discrepancies between physician and parent neonatal prognostic expectations are common. Optimism bias is a possible explanation.

STUDY DESIGN

Parents interpreted hypothetical neonatal prognoses in an online survey.

RESULTS

Good prognoses tended to be interpreted accurately, while poor prognoses were interpreted as less than the stated value. One-third of participants consistently overstated survival for the three lowest prognoses, compared to the sample as a whole. Three significant predictors of such optimistic interpretations were single-parent status (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.2-0.75; p = 0.005), African-American descent (OR 3.78; 95% CI 1.63-8.98; p = 0.002) and the belief that physicians misrepresented prognoses (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.47-6.65; p = 0.003). Participants' explanations echoed research on optimism bias in clinical and decision science studies.

CONCLUSION

Participants accepted positive prognoses for critically ill neonates, but reinterpreted negative ones as being unduly pessimistic demonstrating optimism bias.

Pediatric Deep Brain Stimulation for Dystonia: Current State and Ethical Considerations

Dystonia is a movement disorder that can have a debilitating impact on motor functions and quality of life. There are 250,000 cases in the United States, most with childhood onset. Due to the limited effectiveness and side effects of available treatments, pediatric deep brain stimulation (pDBS) has emerged as an intervention for refractory dystonia. However, there is limited clinical and neuroethics research in this area of clinical practice. This paper examines whether it is ethically justified to offer pDBS to children with refractory dystonia. Given the favorable risk-benefit profile, it is concluded that offering pDBS is ethically justified for certain etiologies of dystonia, but it is less clear for others. In addition, various ethical and policy concerns are discussed, which need to be addressed to optimize the practice of offering pDBS for dystonia. Strategies are proposed to help address these concerns as pDBS continues to expand.

Comparison of Patient and Expert Perceptions of the Attainment of Research Milestones in Parkinson's Disease

Background

Commentators suggest that patients have unrealistic expectations about the pace of research advances and that such expectations interfere with patient decision‐making.

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare expert expectations about the timing of research milestone attainment with those of patients who follow Parkinson's disease (PD) research.

Methods

Patients with PD and experts were asked to provide forecasts about 11 milestones in PD research in an online survey. PD experts were identified from a Michael J. Fox Foundation database, highly ranked neurology centers in the United States and Canada, and corresponding authors of articles on PD in top medical journals. Patients with PD were recruited through the Michael J. Fox Foundation. We tested whether patient forecasts differed on average from expert forecasts. We also tested whether differences between patient forecasts and the average expert forecasts were associated with any demographic factors.

Results

A total of 256 patients and 249 PD experts completed the survey. For 9 of the 11 milestones, patients' forecasts were on average higher than those of experts. Only exercise therapy met our 10% difference threshold for practical significance. Education was the only demographic that predicted patient deviations from expert forecasts on milestone forecasts. Patients offered significantly higher forecasts than experts that the clinical trials used in milestone queries would report positive primary outcomes.

Conclusions

Differences between patient and expert expectations about research milestones were generally minor, suggesting that there is little cause for concern that patients who follow PD research are unduly swayed by inaccurate representations of research advancement in the media or elsewhere. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Understanding people's 'unrealistic optimism' about clinical research participation

BACKGROUND

Researchers worry that patients in early-phase research experience unrealistic optimism about benefits and risks of participation. The standard measure of unrealistic optimism is the Comparative Risk/Benefit Assessment (CRBA) questionnaire, which asks people to estimate their chances of an outcome relative to others in similar situations. Such a comparative framework may not be a natural way for research participants to think about their chances.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how people interpret questions measuring unrealistic optimism and how their interpretations are associated with their responses.

METHODS

Using an early-phase cancer trial vignette, we administered the CRBA to 297 adults from the general public. They estimated their comparative chances of risk and benefit (7-point scale: -3 less likely to +3 more likely), then provided rationales for their estimates.

RESULTS

For both CRBA benefit and risk questions, about 50% of respondents chose 0 (the 'correct' response of 'average likelihood'), and 50% chose a non-0 response. Respondents' rationales for their estimates showed that overall only about 40%-44% gave comparative rationales, indicating that they interpreted the CRBA as intended. 68.7% of respondents who gave the 'correct' 0 rating gave comparative rationales, whereas only 11.6% of respondents who gave non-0 ratings did so. A similar trend was seen for chances of risk (p<0.001 for both).

CONCLUSION

Research participants may not understand comparative benefit and risk questions as intended; attributions of unrealistic optimism may require additional evidence that the respondents' estimates are intended to be comparative.