Ethical Issues in Deep Brain Stimulation Research for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Focus on Risk and Consent

Qualitative Analysis of Decision to Pursue Electrical Brain Stimulation by Patients With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy and Their Caregivers

Background and Objectives

To understand why patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) pursue invasive electrical brain stimulation (EBS).

Methods

We interviewed patients with DRE (n = 20) and their caregivers about their experiences in pursuing EBS approximately 1 year post device implant. Inductive analysis was applied to identify key motivating factors.

Results

The cohort included participants aged from teens to 50s with deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, responsive neurostimulation, and chronic subthreshold cortical stimulation. Patients' motivations included (1) improved quality of life (2) intolerability of antiseizure medications, (3) desperation, and (4) patient-family dynamics. Both patients and caregivers described a desire to alleviate burdens of the other. Patient apprehensions about EBS focused on invasiveness and the presence of electrodes in the brain. Previous experiences with invasive monitoring and the ability to see hardware in person during clinical visits influenced patients' comfort in proceeding with EBS. Despite realistic expectations for modest and delayed benefits, patients held out hope for an exceptionally positive outcome.

Discussion

Our findings describe the motivations and decision-making process for patients with DRE who pursue invasive EBS. Patients balance feelings of desperation, personal goals, frustration with medication side effects, fears about surgery, and potential pressure from concerned caregivers. These factors together with the sense that patients have exhausted therapeutic alternatives may explain the limited decisional ambivalence observed in this cohort. These themes highlight opportunities for epilepsy care teams to support patient decision-making processes.

Brain Pioneers and Moral Entanglement: An Argument for Post-trial Responsibilities in Neural-Device Trials

We argue that in implanted neurotechnology research, participants and researchers experience what Henry Richardson has called "moral entanglement." Participants partially entrust researchers with access to their brains and thus to information that would otherwise be private, leading to created intimacies and special obligations of beneficence for researchers and research funding agencies. One of these obligations, we argue, is about continued access to beneficial technology once a trial ends. We make the case for moral entanglement in this context through exploration of participants' vulnerability, uncompensated risks and burdens, depth of relationship with the research team, and dependence on researchers in implanted neurotechnology trials.

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.

Patient feedback and psychosocial outcomes of deep brain stimulation in people with obsessive-compulsive disorder

Severe and refractory psychiatric patients can experience complex and profound changes in symptomology, functioning and well-being from deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapy. Currently, the efficacy of DBS is assessed by clinician rated scales of primary symptoms, yet this does not capture the multitude of DBS mediated changes or represent the patient perspective. We aimed to elucidate the patient perspective in psychiatric DBS application by investigating 1) symptomatic, and 2) psychosocial changes, 3) therapeutic expectations and satisfaction, 4) decision-making capacity, and 5) clinical care recommendations from treatment refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) DBS patients. Participants enrolled in an open label clinical trial of DBS therapy for OCD who had reached clinical response were invited to participate in a follow up survey. Participants completed a 1) feedback survey relating to goals, expectations, and satisfaction of therapy, and 2) self-report questionnaires on psychosocial functioning including quality of life, cognitive insight, locus of control, rumination, cognitive flexibility, impulsivity, affect, and well-being. Greatest change was reported for quality of life, rumination, affect and cognitive flexibility. Participants reported realistic expectations, high satisfaction, adequate pre-operative education and decision-making capacity; and advocated for greater access to DBS care and more widespread support services. This is the first identified investigation on psychiatric patient perspectives of functioning and therapeutic outcomes following DBS. Insights from the study have implications for informing psychoeducation, clinical practices, and neuroethical debates. We encourage a greater patient-centred and biopsychosocial approach in evaluating and managing OCD DBS patients, by considering personally meaningful goals and addressing symptomatic and psychosocial recovery.

Jumping through the hoops: Barriers and other ethical concerns regarding the use of psychiatric electroceutical interventions

Stakeholders' perceptions of barriers to and other ethical concerns about using psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs), interventions that use electrical or magnetic stimuli to treat psychiatric conditions like treatment-resistant depression (TRD), may influence the uptake of these interventions. This study examined such perceptions among psychiatrists, patients with depression, and members of the public. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 16 members of each group to examine their views on practical barriers and ethical concerns. We used qualitative content analysis to identify relevant themes, and compared findings across stakeholder groups. Access limitations to the interventions, including cost and availability of the interventions, cut across all PEIs-including those that are still experimental, and were raised by all groups. Most participants across all groups raised concerns about informed consent, in terms of receiving adequate, appropriate, and understandable information. Our results suggest that these three stakeholder groups perceive similar structural and attitudinal barriers to, and have similar ethical concerns about, using PEIs for TRD. These results identify key issues that must be addressed for the full potential of PEIs to be realized. Future research with larger samples will help to better understand how to address these barriers to treatment for individuals with TRD.

Stakeholders' Perspectives regarding Participation in Neuromodulation-Based Dementia Intervention Research

This study evaluated stakeholders' perspectives regarding participation in two hypothetical neuromodulation trials focused on individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRDs). Stakeholders (i.e., individuals at risk for ADRDs [n = 56], individuals with experience as a caregiver for someone with a cognitive disorder [n = 60], and comparison respondents [n = 124]) were recruited via MTurk. Primary outcomes were willingness to enroll (or enroll one's loved one), feeling lucky to have the opportunity to enroll, and feeling obligated to enroll in two protocols (transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS; deep brain stimulation, DBS). Relative to the Comparison group, the At Risk group endorsed higher levels of "feeling lucky" regarding both research protocols, and higher willingness to participate in the TMS protocol. These findings provide tentative reassurance regarding the nature of decision making regarding neurotechnology-based research on ADRDs. Further work is needed to evaluate the full range of potential influences on research participation.

Factors Influencing Perceived Helpfulness and Participation in Innovative Research: A Pilot Study of Individuals with and without Mood Symptoms

Little is known about how individuals with and without mood disorders perceive the inherent risks and helpfulness of participating in innovative psychiatric research, or about the factors that influence their willingness to participate. We conducted an online survey with 80 individuals (self-reported mood disorder [n = 25], self-reported good health [n = 55]) recruited via MTurk. We assessed respondents' perceptions of risk and helpfulness in study vignettes associated with two innovative research projects (intravenous ketamine therapy and wearable devices), as well as their willingness to participate in these projects. Respondents with and without mood disorders perceived risk similarly across projects. Respondents with no mood disorders viewed both projects as more helpful to society than to research volunteers, while respondents with mood disorders viewed the projects as equally helpful to volunteers and society. Individuals with mood disorders perceived ketamine research, and the two projects on average, as more helpful to research volunteers than did individuals without mood disorders. Our findings add to a limited empirical literature on the perspectives of volunteers in innovative psychiatric research.

Authentic Self and Last Resort: International Perceptions of Psychiatric Neurosurgery

Psychiatric neurosurgery has resurfaced over the past two decades for the treatment of severe mental health disorders, with improved precision and safety over older interventions alongside the development of novel ones. Little is known, however, about current public opinions, expectations, hopes, and concerns over this evolution in neurotechnology, particularly given the controversial history of psychosurgery. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a study with eight focus groups in Vancouver and Montreal (Canada; n = 14), Berlin (Germany; n = 22), and Madrid (Spain; n = 12). Focus group texts were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis in the language local to each city, guided by the theoretical framework of pragmatic neuroethics. Findings indicate that participants across all cities hold concerns about the last resort nature of psychiatric neurosurgery and the potential impact on the authentic self of patients who undergo these procedures. The views captured serve to advance discussion on the appropriate timing for psychiatric neurosurgery, promote sound health policy for the allocation of this resource, and foster scientific literacy about advances for mental health internationally.

Recruitment Challenges for Studies of Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression

INTRODUCTION

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is currently an investigational treatment for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). There is a need for more DBS trials to strengthen existing evidence of its efficacy for both regulatory and clinical reasons. Recruitment for DBS trials remains challenging due to unproven efficacy in sham-controlled DBS trials, invasive nature of the intervention and stringent eligibility criteria in patient selection. Here, we examined the referral patterns and reasons for exclusion of subjects in our DBS trial.

METHODS

Data were collected from all patients who expressed interest in participating in a DBS study involving subcallosal cingulate region from 2014 to 2016. Referral sources were categorized as either self-referral or professional referral. Evaluation for eligibility was performed in three stages; initial contact, brief telephone assessment, and in-person psychiatric evaluation. The reasons for exclusion were documented. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 225 patients who contacted us initially, 22 (9.2%) underwent DBS surgery. Self-referral was higher than the referral from professionals (72% versus 28%, P<0.0001). However, the acceptance rate for surgery was higher among the professional referrals than from self-referrals (40% versus 15%, P=0.03). The common reasons for exclusion were self-withdrawal (38.4%), residing out of province or country (26.1%) and psychiatric/medical comorbidity (21.7%).

CONCLUSION

These findings provide insight into DBS candidacy for future TRD trials. It suggests a need for comprehensive recruitment strategies including active engagement of patients and professionals throughout trials, and effective referral communication with education to optimize recruitment for future DBS trials.

Negative association of perceived risk and willingness to participate in innovative psychiatric research protocols

Psychiatric researchers grapple with concerns that individuals with mental illness may be less likely to appreciate risks of research participation, particularly compared to people not suffering from mental illness. Therefore, empirical studies that directly compare the perspectives of such individuals are needed. In addition, it is important to evaluate perspectives regarding varied types of research protocols, particularly as innovative psychiatric research protocols emerge. In this pilot study, respondents with a mood disorder (n = 25) as well as respondents without a mood disorder (n = 55) were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform. These respondents were surveyed regarding four psychiatric research projects (i.e., experimental medication [pill form]; non-invasive magnetic brain stimulation; experimental medication [intravenous infusion]; and implantation of a device in the brain). Regardless of health status, respondents rated the four research protocols as somewhat to highly risky. The brain-device implant protocol was seen as the most risky, while the magnetic brain stimulation project was viewed as "somewhat risky". Respondents, on average and regardless of health status, rated their willingness at or below "somewhat willing." Respondents were least willing to participate in the brain-device implant protocol, whereas they were "somewhat willing" to participate in the magnetic brain stimulation protocol. Trust in medical research was negatively associated with perceived risk of research protocols. Perceived risk was negatively associated with willingness to participate, even when adjusting for potential confounders, suggesting that attunement to risk crosses diagnostic, gender, and ethnic categories, and is more salient to research decision-making than trust in medical research and dispositional optimism. The findings of this study may offer reassurance about the underlying decision-making processes of individuals considering participation in innovative neuroscience studies.

Patients with depression who self-refer for transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment: exploratory qualitative study

Aims and methodAs part of a larger clinical trial concerning the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for treatment-resistant depression, the current study aimed to examine referral emails to describe the clinical characteristics of people who self-refer and explore the reasons for self-referral for TMS treatment. We used content analysis to explore these characteristics and thematic analysis to explore the reasons for self-referral. RESULTS: Of the 98 referrals, 57 (58%) were for women. Depressive disorder was the most commonly cited diagnosis, followed by bipolar affective disorder. Six themes emerged from the thematic analysis: treatment resistance, side-effects of other treatments, desperation for relief, proactively seeking information, long-term illness and illness getting worse.Clinical implicationsTMS has recently been recommended in the UK for routine use in clinical practice. Therefore, the number of people who self-refer for TMS treatment is likely to increase as its availability increases.Declaration of interestNone.

Should DBS for Psychiatric Disorders be Considered a Form of Psychosurgery? Ethical and Legal Considerations

Deep brain stimulation (DBS), a surgical procedure involving the implantation of electrodes in the brain, has rekindled the medical community's interest in psychosurgery. Whereas many researchers argue DBS is substantially different from psychosurgery, we argue psychiatric DBS-though a much more precise and refined treatment than its predecessors-is nevertheless a form of psychosurgery, which raises both old and new ethical and legal concerns that have not been given proper attention. Learning from the ethical and regulatory failures of older forms of psychosurgery can help shed light on how to address the regulatory gaps that exist currently in DBS research. To show why it is important to address the current regulatory gaps within psychiatric DBS, we draw on the motivations underlying the regulation of earlier forms of psychosurgery in the US. We begin by providing a brief history of psychosurgery and electrical brain stimulation in the US. Against this backdrop, we introduce psychiatric DBS, exploring current research and ongoing clinical trials. We then draw out the ethical and regulatory similarities between earlier forms of psychosurgery and psychiatric DBS. As we will show, the factors that motivated strict regulation of earlier psychosurgical procedures mirror concerns with psychiatric DBS today. We offer three recommendations for psychiatric DBS regulation, which echo earlier motivations for regulating psychosurgery, along with new considerations that reflect the novel technologies used in DBS.

Deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder: Knowledge and concerns among psychiatrists, psychotherapists and patients

Background:

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is under investigation for severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) resistant to other therapies. The number of implants worldwide is slowly increasing. Therefore, it is of importance to explore knowledge and concerns of this novel treatment among patients and their psychiatric healthcare contacts. This information is relevant for scientific professionals working with clinical studies for DBS for this indication. Especially, for future study designs and the creation of information targeting healthcare professionals and patients. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and concerns toward DBS among patients with OCD, psychiatrists, and cognitive behavioral therapists.

Methods:

The study was conducted through web-based surveys for the aimed target groups –psychiatrist, patients, and cognitive behavioral therapists. The surveys contained questions regarding previous knowledge of DBS, source of knowledge, attitudes, and concerns towards the therapy.

Results:

The main source of information was from scientific sources among psychiatrists and psychotherapists. The patient's main source of information was the media. Common concerns among the groups included complications from surgery, anesthesia, stimulation side effects, and the novelty of the treatment. Specific concerns for the groups included; personality changes mentioned by patients and psychotherapists, and ethical concerns among psychiatrists.

Conclusion:

There are challenges for DBS in OCD as identified by the participants of this study; source and quality of information, efficacy, potential adverse effects, and eligibility. In all of which the current evidence base still is limited. A broad research agenda is needed for studies going forward.

Deep Brain Stimulation as Clinical Innovation: An Ethical and Organizational Framework to Sustain Deliberations About Psychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for psychiatric disorders needs to be investigated in proper research trials. However, there are rare circumstances in which DBS could be offered to psychiatric patients as a form of surgical innovation, therefore potentially blurring the lines between these research trials and health care. In this article, we discuss the conditions under which surgical innovation may be accepted as a practice falling at the frontiers of standard clinical care and research per se. However, recognizing this distinction does not settle all ethical issues. Our article offers ethical guideposts to allow clinicians, surgical teams, institutions, and institutional review boards to deliberate about some of the fundamental issues that should be considered before surgical innovation with psychiatric DBS is undertaken. We provide key guiding questions to sustain this deliberation. Then we review the normative and empirical literature that exists to guide reflection about the ethics of surgical innovation and psychiatric DBS with respect to general ethical questions pertinent to psychiatric DBS, multidisciplinary team perspectives in psychiatric DBS, mechanisms for oversight in psychiatric DBS, and capacity and consent in psychiatric DBS. The considerations presented here are to recognize the very specific nature of surgical innovation and to ensure that surgical innovation in the context of psychiatric DBS remains a limited, special category of activity that does not replace appropriate surgical research or become the standard of care based on limited evidence.

ABBREVIATIONS

DBS, deep brain stimulationIRB, institutional review boardOCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Informed consent in implantable BCI research: identification of research risks and recommendations for development of best practices

OBJECTIVE

Implantable brain-computer interface (BCI) research promises improvements in human health and enhancements in quality of life. Informed consent of subjects is a central tenet of this research. Rapid advances in neuroscience, and the intimate connection between functioning of the brain and conceptions of the self, make informed consent particularly challenging in BCI research. Identification of safety and research-related risks associated with BCI devices is an important step in ensuring meaningful informed consent.

APPROACH

This paper highlights a number of BCI research risks, including safety concerns, cognitive and communicative impairments, inappropriate subject expectations, group vulnerabilities, privacy and security, and disruptions of identity.

MAIN RESULTS

Based on identified BCI research risks, best practices are needed for understanding and incorporating BCI-related risks into informed consent protocols.

SIGNIFICANCE

Development of best practices should be guided by processes that are: multidisciplinary, systematic and transparent, iterative, relational and exploratory.

Deep brain stimulation in the treatment of depression

Major depressive disorder is a worldwide disease with debilitating effects on a patient's life. Common treatments include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and electroconvulsive therapy. Many patients do not respond to these treatments; this has led to the investigation of alternative therapeutic modalities. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is one of these modalities. It was first used with success for treating movement disorders and has since been extended to the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Although DBS is still an emerging treatment, promising efficacy and safety have been demonstrated in preliminary trials in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Further, neuroimaging has played a pivotal role in identifying some DBS targets and remains an important tool for evaluating the mechanism of action of this novel intervention. Preclinical animal studies have broadened knowledge about the possible mechanisms of action of DBS for TRD, Given that DBS involves neurosurgery in patients with severe psychiatric impairment, ethical questions concerning capacity to consent arise; these issues must continue to be carefully considered.

When "altering brain function" becomes "mind control"

Functional neurosurgery has seen a resurgence of interest in surgical treatments for psychiatric illness. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) technology is the preferred tool in the current wave of clinical experiments because it allows clinicians to directly alter the functions of targeted brain regions, in a reversible manner, with the intent of correcting diseases of the mind, such as depression, addiction, anorexia nervosa, dementia, and obsessive compulsive disorder. These promising treatments raise a critical philosophical and humanitarian question. “Under what conditions does ‘altering brain function’ qualify as ‘mind control’?” In order to answer this question one needs a definition of mind control. To this end, we reviewed the relevant philosophical, ethical, and neurosurgical literature in order to create a set of criteria for what constitutes mind control in the context of DBS. We also outline clinical implications of these criteria. Finally, we demonstrate the relevance of the proposed criteria by focusing especially on serendipitous treatments involving DBS, i.e., cases in which an unintended therapeutic benefit occurred. These cases highlight the importance of gaining the consent of the subject for the new therapy in order to avoid committing an act of mind control.

Consensus on guidelines for stereotactic neurosurgery for psychiatric disorders

BACKGROUND

For patients with psychiatric illnesses remaining refractory to 'standard' therapies, neurosurgical procedures may be considered. Guidelines for safe and ethical conduct of such procedures have previously and independently been proposed by various local and regional expert groups.

METHODS

To expand on these earlier documents, representative members of continental and international psychiatric and neurosurgical societies, joined efforts to further elaborate and adopt a pragmatic worldwide set of guidelines. These are intended to address a broad range of neuropsychiatric disorders, brain targets and neurosurgical techniques, taking into account cultural and social heterogeneities of healthcare environments.

FINDINGS

The proposed consensus document highlights that, while stereotactic ablative procedures such as cingulotomy and capsulotomy for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder are considered 'established' in some countries, they still lack level I evidence. Further, it is noted that deep brain stimulation in any brain target hitherto tried, and for any psychiatric or behavioural disorder, still remains at an investigational stage. Researchers are encouraged to design randomised controlled trials, based on scientific and data-driven rationales for disease and brain target selection. Experienced multidisciplinary teams are a mandatory requirement for the safe and ethical conduct of any psychiatric neurosurgery, ensuring documented refractoriness of patients, proper consent procedures that respect patient's capacity and autonomy, multifaceted preoperative as well as postoperative long-term follow-up evaluation, and reporting of effects and side effects for all patients.

INTERPRETATION

This consensus document on ethical and scientific conduct of psychiatric surgery worldwide is designed to enhance patient safety.

Thinking Ahead on Deep Brain Stimulation: An Analysis of the Ethical Implications of a Developing Technology

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a developing technology. New generations of DBS technology are already in the pipeline, yet this particular fact has been largely ignored among ethicists interested in DBS. Focusing only on ethical concerns raised by the current DBS technology is, albeit necessary, not sufficient. Since current bioethical concerns raised by a specific technology could be quite different from the concerns it will raise a couple of years ahead, an ethical analysis should be sensitive to such alterations, or it could end up with results that soon become dated. The goal of this analysis is to address these changing bioethical concerns, to think ahead on upcoming and future DBS concerns both in terms of a changing technology and changing moral attitudes. By employing the distinction between inherent and noninherent bioethical concerns we identify and make explicit the particular limits and potentials for change within each category, respectively, including how present and upcoming bioethical concerns regarding DBS emerge and become obsolete. Many of the currently identified ethical problems with DBS, such as stimulation-induced mania, are a result of suboptimal technology. These challenges could be addressed by technical advances, while for instance perceptions of an altered body image caused by the mere awareness of having an implant may not. Other concerns will not emerge until the technology has become sophisticated enough for new uses to be realized, such as concerns on DBS for enhancement purposes. As a part of the present analysis, concerns regarding authenticity are used as an example.

Is electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) ever ethically justified? If so, under what circumstances

The debate about ECT in Ireland in recent times has been vibrant and often polarised. The uniqueness of the Irish situation is that the psychiatric profession is protected by legislation whereby ECT treatment can be authorized by two consultant psychiatrists without the consent of the patient. This paper will consider if ECT is ever ethically justified, and if so, under what circumstances. The proposal is to investigate ECT from an ethical perspective with reference to the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The enquiry will begin with an historical context to the origin and development of ECT as a treatment for severe mental illness. The application of various ethical principles will be considered in conjunction with the relevant literature before arriving at a conclusion.

Practical considerations in the development and refinement of subcallosal cingulate white matter deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation has been investigated in the past decade as a viable intervention for treatment-resistant depression.

METHODS

Several anatomic targets have been tested, with the most extensive published experience found for the subcallosal cingulate (SCC) white matter.

RESULTS

This article reviews the current state of clinical research of SCC deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression, including an overview of the rationale for targeting SCC, practical considerations for subject recruitment and evaluation, surgical planning, and stimulation parameters.

CONCLUSION

Clinical management of patients in the initial and long-term naturalistic phases of treatment, including the potential role for psychotherapeutic rehabilitation, is discussed.

The ethics of research on deep brain stimulation for depression: decisional capacity and therapeutic misconception

Research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression appears promising, but concerns have been raised about the decisional capacity of severely depressed patients and their potential misconceptions about the research. We assessed 31 DBS research participants with the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), a well-validated capacity measure, and with a scale to measure therapeutic misconception, which occurs when subjects do not recognize key differences between treatment and clinical research. Correlations with baseline depressive symptoms were explored. Subjects' performance on the MacCAT-CR was excellent, but therapeutic misconception was still apparent. A trend toward significance was found in the correlation between baseline depression ratings and total therapeutic misconception score. Responses to open-ended prompts revealed both reassuring and concerning statements related to expectations of risk, benefit, and individualization. Even severely depressed patients did not manifest impairments in their capacity to consent to DBS research. Therapeutic misconception, however, remained prevalent.

Enrolling in deep brain stimulation research for depression: influences on potential subjects' decision making

BACKGROUND

Ethical concerns regarding early-phase clinical trials of DBS for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) include the possibility that participants' decisions to enroll might be motivated by unrealistic expectations of personal benefit or minimization of risks.

METHODS

Thematic analyses were conducted on a sample of 26 adults considering participation in two DBS trials. Influences on the decision making of these potential DBS trial participants were derived from responses to questions posed in the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), a semi-structured interview designed to evaluate decisional capacity to consent to research.

RESULTS

Participants cited numerous factors as influential in their enrollment decisions, including perceived lack of other treatment options, desire to take initiative, beliefs about DBS as a novel treatment, possibility of DBS efficacy, hoped-for improvements, potential risks and disadvantages of DBS or clinical trial participation, and altruism. No individual expressed a set of motivations or influencing factors that suggested compromised decision-making capacity or diminished voluntariness of decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that individuals make the decision to enroll in early-phase trials of DBS for TRD based on a number of complex and sometimes idiosyncratic considerations, and that the trials that were studied utilized sufficiently robust informed consent processes. These findings offer evidence that the emerging research area of DBS can be advanced in an ethically sound manner, provided that safeguards and processes for discussing trials with participants are carefully and proactively enacted.

Participants' Perceptions of Deep Brain Stimulation Research for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Risks, Benefits, and Therapeutic Misconception

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is the focus of great interest and numerous studies. Given the state of this research, the risks of DBS, the uncertainty of direct benefits, and the potential for therapeutic misconception (TM), examination of research participants' perspectives is critical to addressing concerns about the adequacy of consent among people with TRD.

METHODS

Among 31 participants considering DBS studies at two sites, self-report questionnaires were used to examine three dimensions of TM (eight true/false items). Additional Likert-scale items assessed perceptions of risks, potential benefits, and altruistic motivations.

RESULTS

Participants correctly identified the surgery itself as the riskiest study procedure, although only four participants rated the surgery as "high risk." Most participants rated the entire DBS study as "moderate" or lower risk. Participants rated the likelihood of others benefiting in the future more strongly than they did the likelihood of personal benefit. Participants held positive attitudes toward research, and were moderately altruistic. Nearly two-thirds of the 31 participants (64.5%) answered at least one of the true/false TM items incorrectly.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals considering DBS studies for TRD demonstrated reasonable perceptions of risks and benefits, distinguished among procedural risks, and expressed hopes for personal benefit as well as altruism. Findings related to TM were mixed: Participants understood the experimental stage of DBS for depression and endorsed the possibility of no personal benefit, yet there was some evidence for TM. Although these findings are reassuring, investigators must nevertheless remain vigilant about identifying and addressing potential misconceptions.