Kalokairinou L, Choi R, Nagappan A, Wexler A. Opportunity Cost or Opportunity Lost: An Empirical Assessment of Ethical Concerns and Attitudes of EEG Neurofeedback Users.
NEUROETHICS-NETH 2022;
15:28. [PMID:
36249541 PMCID:
PMC9555209 DOI:
10.1007/s12152-022-09506-x]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2022] [Accepted: 09/15/2022] [Indexed: 10/14/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse