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

Disentangling Function from Benefit: Participant Perspectives from an Early Feasibility Trial for a Novel Visual Cortical Prosthesis

Visual cortical prostheses (VCPs) have the potential to provide artificial vision for visually impaired persons. However, the nature and utility of this form of vision is not yet fully understood. Participants in the early feasibility trial for the Orion VCP were interviewed to gain insight into their experiences using artificial vision, their motivations for participation, as well as their expectations and assessments of risks and benefits. Analyzed using principles of grounded theory and an interpretive description approach, these interviews yielded six themes, including: the irreducibility of benefit to device functionality, mixed expectations for short-term device functionality and long-term technological advancement of visual prostheses, and a broad range of risks, concerns, and fears related to trial participation. We argue that these narratives motivate a nuanced set of ethical considerations related to the complex relationship between functionality and benefit, the intersection of user experience with disability justice, and the import of expectations and indirect risks on consent.

Manipulative neuroparasites: uncovering the intricacies of neurological host control

Manipulative neuroparasites are a fascinating group of organisms that possess the ability to hijack the nervous systems of their hosts, manipulating their behavior in order to enhance their own survival and reproductive success. This review provides an overview of the different strategies employed by manipulative neuroparasites, ranging from viruses to parasitic worms and fungi. By examining specific examples, such as Toxoplasma gondii, Leucochloridium paradoxum, and Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, we highlight the complex mechanisms employed by these parasites to manipulate their hosts' behavior. We explore the mechanisms through which these parasites alter the neural processes and behavior of their hosts, including the modulation of neurotransmitters, hormonal pathways, and neural circuits. This review focuses less on the diseases that neuroparasites induce and more on the process of their neurological manipulation. We also investigate the fundamental mechanisms of host manipulation in the developing field of neuroparasitology, which blends neuroscience and parasitology. Finally, understanding the complex interaction between manipulative neuroparasites and their hosts may help us to better understand the fundamentals of behavior, neurology, and host-parasite relationships.

Impact of an educational intervention for advanced cancer patients referred for early phase clinical trials

A 2017 service evaluation identified a lack of information and knowledge among patients who were referred on to early phase oncology clinical trials (Hood, 2020). An educational booklet was developed to improve patients' knowledge and experience. To build upon this work, a patient co-designed website was developed. This study examined the impact, if any, of a patient co-designed educational intervention within the clinical pathway for patients who are referred for an early phase oncology clinical trial at an experimental cancer medicine centre (ECMC).

AIMS

1. To understand the experiences of patients who have been referred to an ECMC for an early phase clinical trial pre- and post-intervention. 2. To investigate if the intervention reduced anxiety levels in newly referred patients.

METHOD

A convergent mixed-methods design was used in this study, to collect quantitative and qualitative data in parallel.

OUTCOMES

This study examined the experiences of advanced cancer patients who attended their initial research outpatient appointment to discuss the possibility of taking part in an early phase clinical trial and the impact of an educational resource.

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.

Opportunity Cost or Opportunity Lost: An Empirical Assessment of Ethical Concerns and Attitudes of EEG Neurofeedback Users

Background

Electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback is a type of biofeedback that purportedly teaches users how to control their brainwaves. Although neurofeedback is currently offered by thousands of providers worldwide, its provision is contested, as its effectiveness beyond a placebo effect is unproven. While scholars have voiced numerous ethical concerns about neurofeedback-regarding opportunity cost, physical and psychological harms, financial cost, and informed consent-to date these concerns have remained theoretical. This pilot study aimed to provide insights on whether these issues were supported by empirical data from the experiences of neurofeedback users.

Methods

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals who had used EEG neurofeedback for themselves and/or for a child.

Results

The majority of respondents (N = 36) were female (75%), white (92%), and of higher socioeconomic status relative to the U.S. population. Among adult users (n = 33), most (78.8%) resorted to neurofeedback after having tried other therapies and were satisfied with treatment (81.8%). The majority paid for neurofeedback out-of-pocket (72.7%) and considered it to be good value for money (84.8%). More than half (57.6%) considered neurofeedback to be a scientifically well-established therapy. However, of those, 78.9%were using neurofeedback for indications not adequately supported by scientific evidence.

Conclusion

Concerns regarding opportunity cost, physical and psychological harms, and financial cost are not substantiated by our findings. Our results partially support concerns regarding insufficient understanding of limitations. This study underlines the disconnect between some of the theoretical concerns raised by scholars regarding the use of non-validated therapies and the lived experiences of users.

Asking questions that matter – Question prompt lists as tools for improving the consent process for neurotechnology clinical trials

Implantable neurotechnology devices such as Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) and Deep Brain Stimulators (DBS) are an increasing part of treating or exploring potential treatments for neurological and psychiatric disorders. While only a few devices are approved, many promising prospects for future devices are under investigation. The decision to participate in a clinical trial can be challenging, given a variety of risks to be taken into consideration. During the consent process, prospective participants might lack the language to consider those risks, feel unprepared, or simply not know what questions to ask. One tool to help empower participants to play a more active role during the consent process is a Question Prompt List (QPL). QPLs are communication tools that can prompt participants and patients to articulate potential concerns. They offer a structured list of disease, treatment, or research intervention-specific questions that research participants can use as support for question asking. While QPLs have been studied as tools for improving the consent process during cancer treatment, in this paper, we suggest they would be helpful in neurotechnology research, and offer an example of a QPL as a template for an informed consent tool in neurotechnology device trials.