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

Neuropsychological and social predictors of participation in a deep brain stimulation study of Parkinson's disease and dystonia

Objectives

Participation is essential to DBS research, yet circumstances that affect diverse participation remain unclear. Here we evaluate factors impacting participation in an adaptive DBS study of Parkinson's disease (PD) and dystonia.

Methods

Twenty participants were implanted with a sensing-enabled DBS device (Medtronic Summit RC+S) that allows neural data streaming in naturalistic settings and encouraged to stream as much as possible for the first five months after surgery. Using standardized baseline data obtained through neuropsychological evaluation, we compared neuropsychological and social variables to streaming hours.

Results

Marital status and irritability significantly impacted streaming hours (estimate=136.7, bootstrapped ( b ) CI b =45.0 to 249.0, p b =0.016, and estimate=-95.1, CI b =-159.9 to -49.2, p b =0.027, respectively). These variables remained significant after multivariable analysis. Composite scores on verbal memory evaluations predicted the number of hours of data streamed (R 2 =0.284, estimate=67.7, CI b =20.1 to 119.9, p b =0.019).

Discussion

Verbal memory impairment, irritability, and lack of a caregiver may be associated with decreased participation. Further study of factors that impact research participation is critical to the sustained inclusion of diverse participants.

Ethical considerations for integrating multimodal computer perception and neurotechnology

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer perception technologies (e.g., digital phenotyping and affective computing) promise to transform clinical approaches to personalized care in psychiatry and beyond by offering more objective measures of emotional states and behavior, enabling precision treatment, diagnosis, and symptom monitoring. At the same time, passive and continuous nature by which they often collect data from patients in non-clinical settings raises ethical issues related to privacy and self-determination. Little is known about how such concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data, as parallel advances in computer perception, AI, and neurotechnology enable new insights into subjective states. Here, we present findings from a multi-site NCATS-funded study of ethical considerations for translating computer perception into clinical care and contextualize them within the neuroethics and neurorights literatures.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews with patients (n = 20), caregivers (n = 20), clinicians (n = 12), developers (n = 12), and clinician developers (n = 2) regarding their perspective toward using PC in clinical care. Transcripts were analyzed in MAXQDA using Thematic Content Analysis.

Results

Stakeholder groups voiced concerns related to (1) perceived invasiveness of passive and continuous data collection in private settings; (2) data protection and security and the potential for negative downstream/future impacts on patients of unintended disclosure; and (3) ethical issues related to patients' limited versus hyper awareness of passive and continuous data collection and monitoring. Clinicians and developers highlighted that these concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data with other computer perception data.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that the integration of neurotechnologies with existing computer perception technologies raises novel concerns around dignity-related and other harms (e.g., stigma, discrimination) that stem from data security threats and the growing potential for reidentification of sensitive data. Further, our findings suggest that patients' awareness and preoccupation with feeling monitored via computer sensors ranges from hypo- to hyper-awareness, with either extreme accompanied by ethical concerns (consent vs. anxiety and preoccupation). These results highlight the need for systematic research into how best to implement these technologies into clinical care in ways that reduce disruption, maximize patient benefits, and mitigate long-term risks associated with the passive collection of sensitive emotional, behavioral and neural data.

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.

"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.

Post-trial access in implanted neural device research: Device maintenance, abandonment, and cost

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial participants who benefit from experimental neural devices for the treatment of debilitating and otherwise treatment-resistant conditions are generally not ensured continued access to effective therapy or maintenance of devices at the conclusion of trials.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Post-trial obligations have been extensively examined in the context of drug trials, but there has been little empirical examination of stakeholder perspectives regarding these obligations in the rapidly growing field of neural device research.

METHODS

This study examined the perspectives of 44 stakeholders (i.e., 23 researchers and 21 patient-participants) involved in implantable neural device trials.

RESULTS

Researchers were concerned about current post-trial management, identified barriers like cost, and suggested ways to improve the system. Many patient-participants were unaware of whether they would have post-trial access, but most thought they should keep devices if beneficial, and agreed with researchers that more should be done to help them keep and maintain these neural devices.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth examination of researcher perspectives regarding continued access to experimental neural devices and only the second such examination of patient-participant perspectives. These data can help inform future ethical and policy decisions about post-trial access to implantable neurotechnology.