A Qualitative Analysis of Ethical Perspectives on Recruitment and Consent for Human Intracranial Electrophysiology Studies

Best practices for clinical trials of deep brain stimulation for neuropsychiatric indications

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is well suited to target disorders with network dysregulation, as is the case in many neuropsychiatric diseases. While DBS is a well-established therapy for Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, dystonia, and medically refractory epilepsy, it is actively being studied in clinical trials for neuropsychiatric disorders including treatment-refractory major depressive disorder (MDD). Due to the nature of symptomology and participant characteristics, special care must be taken in the design and implementation of clinical trials testing DBS for neuropsychiatric disorders. In particular, these studies typically include multi-year relationships between participants and study staff with frequent interactions, high burden of study activities on participants, and disclosure by participants of sensitive information related to symptoms and disease state. Through our experience with six participants across more than 5 years of the Presidio clinical trial assessing personalized closed-loop DBS for treatment-refractory MDD, we have gathered experience and evidence to inform best practices for conducting these interaction-intensive clinical studies in a vulnerable population. Here, we present these Key Practices along with discussion, informed by multiple fundamental principles: The Belmont Report; emotional and physical safety for study participants and staff; and integrity and validity of scientific outcomes.

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

This study is a pilot literature review that compares the interest of neuroethicists and neuroscientists. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics journals and neuroscience journals. We retrieved 614 articles from two specialist neuroethics journals (Neuroethics and AJOB Neuroscience) and 82 neuroethics-focused articles from three specialist neuroscience journals (Neuron, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Reviews Neuroscience). We classified these articles in light of the neuroethical issue in question before we compared the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics with those addressed by neuroscientists. A notable result is a parallelism between them as a general tendency. Neuroscientific articles cover most neuroethical issues discussed by philosophical ethicists and vice versa. Subsequently, there are notable discrepancies between the two bodies of neuroethics literature. For instance, theoretical questions, such as the ethics of moral enhancement and the philosophical implications of neuroscientific findings on our conception of personhood, are more intensely discussed in philosophical-neuroethical articles. Conversely, neuroscientific articles tend to emphasize practical questions, such as how to successfully integrate ethical perspectives into scientific research projects and justifiable practices of animal-involving neuroscientific research. These observations will help us settle the common starting point of the attempt at "ethics integration" in emerging neuroscience, contributing to better governance design and neuroethical practice.

Two Practices to Improve Informed Consent for Intraoperative Brain Research

As the clinical applications of neurologically implanted devices increase, so do opportunities for intracranial investigations in human patients. In some of these studies, patients participate in research during their awake brain surgery, performing additional tasks without the prospect of personal therapeutic benefit. These intraoperative studies raise persistent ethical challenges because they are conducted during a clinical intervention, in a clinical space, and often by the treating clinician. Whether intraoperative research necessitates innovative informed consent methods has become a pressing conversation. Familiar worries about inadequate participant understanding and undue influence dominate these discussions, as do calls for increasing information retention (e.g., using methods such as "teach-back") and minimizing enrollment pressures (e.g., preventing surgeons from consenting their own patients). However, efforts have yet to inspire widespread consent practices that mirror the scope of ethical concern. Focusing on awake, intraoperative intracranial research, we identify 2 underappreciated problems in approaches to informed consent. The first is epistemic: Many practices do not fully consider when and under which conditions participants are adequately informed. The second is relational: Many practices do not fully consider the effects of trust between patient-participants and surgeon-researchers. In exploring these concerns, we also raise questions about whether additional steps beyond preoperative consent may improve the process because decisions at this time are decoupled from both the experiences and vulnerability of awake brain surgery. Motivated by these considerations, we propose 2 practices: first, requiring a third-party patient advocate in initial consent and second, requiring verbal intraoperative reconsent before initiating research.

"They were already inside my head to begin with": Trust, Translational Misconception, and Intraoperative Brain Research

Background: Patients undergoing invasive neurosurgical procedures offer researchers unique opportunities to study the brain. Deep brain stimulation patients, for example, may participate in research during the surgical implantation of the stimulator device. Although this research raises many ethical concerns, little attention has been paid to basic studies, which offer no therapeutic benefits, and the value of patient-participant perspectives.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen individuals across two studies who participated in basic intraoperative research during their deep brain stimulator surgery. Interviews explored interpretations of risks and benefits, enrollment motivations, and experiences of participating in awake brain research. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.Results: Seven themes were identified from participant narratives, including robust attitudes of trust, high valuations of basic science research, impacts of the surgical context, and mixed experiences of participation.Conclusion: We argue that these narratives raise the potential for a translational misconception and motivate intraoperative re-consent procedures.

Ethical commitments, principles, and practices guiding intracranial neuroscientific research in humans

Leveraging firsthand experience, BRAIN-funded investigators conducting intracranial human neuroscience research propose two fundamental ethical commitments: (1) maintaining the integrity of clinical care and (2) ensuring voluntariness. Principles, practices, and uncertainties related to these commitments are offered for future investigation.

Ethical Issues in Intraoperative Neuroscience Research: Assessing Subjects' Recall of Informed Consent and Motivations for Participation

BackgroundAn increasing number of studies utilize intracranial electrophysiology in human subjects to advance basic neuroscience knowledge. However, the use of neurosurgical patients as human research subjects raises important ethical considerations, particularly regarding informed consent and undue influence, as well as subjects' motivations for participation. Yet a thorough empirical examination of these issues in a participant population has been lacking. The present study therefore aimed to empirically investigate ethical concerns regarding informed consent and voluntariness in Parkinson's disease patients undergoing deep brain stimulator (DBS) placement who participated in an intraoperative neuroscience study.MethodsTwo semi-structured 30-minute interviews were conducted preoperatively and postoperatively via telephone. Interviews assessed participants' motivations for participation in the parent intraoperative study, recall of information presented during the informed consent process, and participants' postoperative reflections on the research study.ResultsTwenty-two participants (mean age = 60.9) completed preoperative interviews at a mean of 7.8 days following informed consent and a mean of 5.2 days prior to DBS surgery. Twenty participants completed postoperative interviews at a mean of 5 weeks following surgery. All participants cited altruism or advancing medical science as "very important" or "important" in their decision to participate in the study. Only 22.7% (n = 5) correctly recalled one of the two risks of the study. Correct recall of other aspects of the informed consent was poor (36.4% for study purpose; 50.0% for study protocol; 36.4% for study benefits). All correctly understood that the study would not confer a direct therapeutic benefit to them.ConclusionEven though research coordinators were properly trained and the informed consent was administered according to protocol, participants demonstrated poor retention of study information. While intraoperative studies that aim to advance neuroscience knowledge represent a unique opportunity to gain fundamental scientific knowledge, improved standards for the informed consent process can help facilitate their ethical implementation.

Patient, Caregiver, and Decliner Perspectives on Whether to Enroll in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Research

This research study provides patient and caregiver perspectives as to whether or not to undergo adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) research. A total of 51 interviews were conducted in a multi-site study including patients undergoing aDBS and their respective caregivers along with persons declining aDBS. Reasons highlighted for undergoing aDBS included hopes for symptom alleviation, declining quality of life, desirability of being in research, and altruism. The primary reasons for not undergoing aDBS issues were practical rather than specific to aDBS technology, although some persons highlighted a desire to not be the first to trial the new technology. These themes are discussed in the context of "push" factors wherein any form of surgical intervention is preferable to none and "pull" factors wherein opportunities to contribute to science combine with hopes and/or expectations for the alleviation of symptoms. We highlight the significance of study design in decision making. aDBS is an innovative technology and not a completely new technology. Many participants expressed value in being part of research as an important consideration. We suggest that there are important implications when comparing patient perspectives vs. theoretical perspectives on the choice for or against aDBS. Additionally, it will be important how we communicate with patients especially in reference to the complexity of study design. Ultimately, this study reveals that there are benefits and potential risks when choosing a research study that involves implantation of a medical device.