Patient experiences of resection versus responsive neurostimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy.

This study explored illness experiences and decision-making among patients with epilepsy who underwent two different types of surgical interventions: resection versus implantation of the NeuroPace Responsive Neurostimulation System (RNS). We recruited 31 participants from a level four epilepsy center in an academic medical institution. We observed 22 patient clinic visits (resection: n = 10, RNS: n = 12) and conducted 18 in-depth patient interviews (resection: n = seven, RNS: n = 11); most visits and interviews included patient caregivers. Using an applied ethnographic approach, we identified three major themes in the experiences of resection versus RNS patients. First, for patients in both cohorts, the therapeutic journey was circuitous in ways that defied standardized first-, second-, and third- line of care models. Second, in conceptualizing risk, resection patients emphasized the permanent loss of "taking out" brain tissue whereas RNS patients highlighted the reversibility of "putting in" a device. Lastly, in considering benefit, resection patients perceived their surgery as potentially curative while RNS patients understood implantation as primarily palliative with possible additional diagnostic benefit from chronic electrocorticography. Insight into the perspectives of patients and caregivers may help identify key topics for counseling and exploration by clinicians.

Ethical considerations in rapid and novel treatments in psychiatry.

New treatment modalities for mental illness are deeply needed, and emerging therapeutic agents such as psychedelics, ketamine, and neuromodulatory technologies have been welcomed by many researchers and patients. These treatment approaches have also been observed to raise novel ethical questions, and to pose new and different versions of familiar ethical questions in clinical treatment and research. We present an overview and introduction to these issues organized around three specific domains of ethical concern: informed consent, the role of expectancy in clinical response, and distributive justice.

Closed-Loop Neuromodulation and Self-Perception in Clinical Treatment of Refractory Epilepsy.

Background: Newer "closed-loop" neurostimulation devices in development could, in theory, induce changes to patients' personalities and self-perceptions. Empirically, however, only limited data of patient and family experiences exist. Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) as a treatment for refractory epilepsy is the first approved and commercially available closed-loop brain stimulation system in clinical practice, presenting an opportunity to observe how conceptual neuroethical concerns manifest in clinical treatment.Methods: We conducted ethnographic research at a single academic medical center with an active RNS treatment program and collected data via direct observation of clinic visits and in-depth interviews with 12 patients and their caregivers. We used deductive and inductive analyses to identify the relationship between these devices and patient changes in personality and self-perception.Results: Participants generally did not attribute changes in patients' personalities or self-perception to implantation of or stimulation using RNS. They did report that RNS affected patients' experiences and conceptions of illness. In particular, the capacity to store and display electrophysiological data produced a common frame of reference and a shared vocabulary among patients and clinicians.Discussion: Empirical experiences of a clinical population being treated with closed-loop neuromodulation do not corroborate theoretical concerns about RNS devices described by neuroethicists and technology developers. However, closed-loop devices demonstrated an ability to change illness experiences. Even without altering identify and self-perception, they provided new cultural tools and metaphors for conceiving of epilepsy as an illness and of the process of diagnosis and treatment. These findings call attention to the need to situate neuroethical concerns in the broader contexts of patients' illness experiences and social circumstances.

Professionalised intimacy: how dementia care workers navigate between domestic intimacy and institutional detachment.

This article reports an ethnographic study of the handover routines in Germany's first dementia village, with a central focus on how care is balanced between domestic intimacy and institutional detachment. The term 'professionalised intimacy' is used for the vivid interplay between comfort and intimacy that renders the interaction between care workers and residents far more complex than previous theories have articulated. Because of the intimacy involved in community building, however, the promise of personalised care must clash with the bureaucratic structures of an official institution, potentially depriving the care workers of their public, respected identity in the process. The study further suggests that most care workers, in fact, support this division between domestic intimacy and institutional detachment. Even if they subscribe to a dementia village's philosophy of personalised care, their medical training and enculturation has endowed them with a habitus compatible with the modern health profession, with incentives on achieving quantifiable health goals. The dementia village is thus illustrated as a pioneering health care experiment that negotiates rivalling discourses of intimacy, professionalisation, and medicalisation.

Digital health: meeting the ethical and policy challenges.

Digital health encompasses a wide range of novel digital technologies related to health and medicine. Such technologies rely on recent advances in the collection and analysis of ever increasing amounts of data from both patients and healthy citizens. Along with new opportunities, however, come new ethical and policy challenges. These range from the need to adapt current evidence-based standards, to issues of privacy, oversight, accountability and public trust as well as national and international data governance and management. This review illustrates key issues and challenges facing the rapidly unfolding digital health paradigm and reflects on the impact of big data in medical research and clinical practice both internationally and in Switzerland. It concludes by emphasising five conditions that will be crucial to fulfil in order to foster innovation and fair benefit sharing in digital health.

Genes wide open: Data sharing and the social gradient of genomic privacy.

This study reports on 13 semistructured in-depth interviews to qualitatively explore the experiences of individuals who publicly shared their direct-to-consumer genetic testing results on the platform openSNP. In particular, we focused on interviewees' understanding of privacy. Participants reported that the likelihood and the magnitude of privacy harms depend on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, the stigma associated with certain clinical conditions, the existence of adequate legislation, and the nature of national health care systems. Some participants expressed the view that those who enjoy higher socioeconomic status or are better protected by their country's legislation have a responsibility to share their genetic data. Our study shows that people who share their genetic data publicly online-far from being insensitive to privacy risks-have a complex understanding of the social, relational, and contextual nature of genetic privacy.

Open sharing of genomic data: Who does it and why?

We explored the characteristics and motivations of people who, having obtained their genetic or genomic data from Direct-To-Consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) companies, voluntarily decide to share them on the publicly accessible web platform openSNP. The study is the first attempt to describe open data sharing activities undertaken by individuals without institutional oversight. In the paper we provide a detailed overview of the distribution of the demographic characteristics and motivations of people engaged in genetic or genomic open data sharing. The geographical distribution of the respondents showed the USA as dominant. There was no significant gender divide, the age distribution was broad, educational background varied and respondents with and without children were equally represented. Health, even though prominent, was not the respondents' primary or only motivation to be tested. As to their motivations to openly share their data, 86.05% indicated wanting to learn about themselves as relevant, followed by contributing to the advancement of medical research (80.30%), improving the predictability of genetic testing (76.02%) and considering it fun to explore genotype and phenotype data (75.51%). Whereas most respondents were well aware of the privacy risks of their involvement in open genetic data sharing and considered the possibility of direct, personal repercussions troubling, they estimated the risk of this happening to be negligible. Our findings highlight the diversity of DTC-GT consumers who decide to openly share their data. Instead of focusing exclusively on health-related aspects of genetic testing and data sharing, our study emphasizes the importance of taking into account benefits and risks that stretch beyond the health spectrum. Our results thus lend further support to the call for a broader and multi-faceted conceptualization of genomic utility.