Participant perceptions of changes in psychosocial domains following participation in an adaptive deep brain stimulation trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been substantial controversy in the neuroethics literature regarding the extent to which deep brain stimulation (DBS) impacts dimensions of personality, mood, and behavior. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Despite extensive debate in the theoretical literature, there remains a paucity of empirical data available to support or refute claims related to the psychosocial changes following DBS. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to examine the perspectives of patients who underwent DBS regarding changes to their personality, authenticity, autonomy, risk-taking, and overall quality of life. RESULTS: Patients (n = 21) who were enrolled in adaptive DBS trials for Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette's syndrome, or dystonia participated. Qualitative data revealed that participants, in general, reported positive experiences with alterations in what was described as 'personality, mood, and behavior changes.' The majority of participants reported increases in quality of life. No participants reported 'regretting the decision to undergo DBS.' CONCLUSION(S): The findings from this patient sample do not support the narrative that DBS results in substantial adverse changes to dimensions of personality, mood, and behavior. Changes reported as "negative" or "undesired" were few in number, and transient in nature.

Researcher Views on Changes in Personality, Mood, and Behavior in Next-Generation Deep Brain Stimulation.

The literature on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises concerns that these technologies may affect personality, mood, and behavior. We conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers (n = 23) involved in developing next-generation DBS systems, exploring their perspectives on ethics and policy topics including whether DBS/aDBS can cause such changes. The majority of researchers reported being aware of personality, mood, or behavioral (PMB) changes in recipients of DBS/aDBS. Researchers offered varying estimates of the frequency of PMB changes. A smaller majority reported changes in personality specifically. Some expressed reservations about the scientific status of the term 'personality,' while others used it freely. Most researchers discussed negative PMB changes, but a majority said that DBS/aDBS can also result in positive changes. Several researchers viewed positive PMB changes as part of the therapeutic goal in psychiatric applications of DBS/aDBS. Finally, several discussed potential causes of PMB changes other than the device itself.

Patient and Clinician Perceptions of Precision Cardiology Care: Findings From the HeartCare Study.

BACKGROUND: Routine genome-wide screening for cardiovascular disease risk may inform clinical decision-making. However, little is known about whether clinicians and patients would find such testing useful or acceptable within the context of a genomics-enabled learning health system. METHODS: We conducted surveys with patients and their clinicians who were participating in the HeartCare Study, a precision cardiology care project that returned results from a next-generation sequencing panel of 158 genes associated with cardiovascular disease risk. Six weeks after return of results, we assessed patients' and clinicians' perceived utility and disutility of HeartCare, the effect of the test on clinical recommendations, and patients' attitudes toward integration of research and clinical care. RESULTS: Among 666 HeartCare patients with a result returned during the survey study period, 42.0% completed a full or partial survey. Patient-participants who completed a full survey (n=224) generally had positive perceptions of HeartCare independent of whether they received a positive or negative result. Most patient-participants considered genetic testing for cardiovascular disease risk to have more benefit than risk (88.3%) and agreed that it provided information that they wanted to know (81.2%), while most disagreed that the test caused them to feel confused (77.7%) or overwhelmed (78.0%). For 122 of their patients with positive results, clinicians (n=13) reported making changes in clinical care for 66.4% of patients, recommending changes in health behaviors for 36.9% of patients, and recommending to 33.6% of patients that their family members have clinical testing. CONCLUSIONS: Both patients and clinicians thought the HeartCare panel screen for cardiovascular disease risk provided information that was useful in terms of personal or health benefits to the patient and that informed clinical care without causing patients to be confused or overwhelmed. Further research is needed to assess perceptions of genome-wide screening among the US cardiology clinic population.

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.

Psychiatric polygenic risk scores: Child and adolescent psychiatrists' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences.

Psychiatric polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential utility in psychiatric care and prevention, but there are concerns about their implementation. We surveyed 960 US-based practicing child and adolescent psychiatrists' (CAP) about their experiences, perspectives, and potential uses of psychiatric PRS. While 23% of CAP reported that they had never heard of PRS, 10 % of respondents have had a patient/family bring PRS to them and 4% have generated PRS for patients. Though 25% stated they would request PRS if a patient/caregiver asked, 35% indicated that nothing would prompt them to request PRS. Most respondents (54%) believed psychiatric PRS are currently at least slightly useful and 87% believed they will be so in 5 years. More than 70% indicated they would take action in response to a child with a top fifth percentile psychiatric PRS but no diagnosis: 48% would increase monitoring of symptoms, 42% would evaluate for current symptoms, and 4% would prescribe medications. Yet, most respondents were concerned that high-PRS results could lead to overtreatment and negatively impact patients' emotional well-being. Findings indicate emerging use of psychiatric PRS within child and adolescent psychiatry in the US. It is critical to examine the ethical and clinical challenges that PRS may generate and begin efforts to promote their informed and responsible use.

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

This research study provides patient and caregiver perspectives as to whether or not to undergo adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) research. A total of 51 interviews were conducted in a multi-site study including patients undergoing aDBS and their respective caregivers along with persons declining aDBS. Reasons highlighted for undergoing aDBS included hopes for symptom alleviation, declining quality of life, desirability of being in research, and altruism. The primary reasons for not undergoing aDBS issues were practical rather than specific to aDBS technology, although some persons highlighted a desire to not be the first to trial the new technology. These themes are discussed in the context of "push" factors wherein any form of surgical intervention is preferable to none and "pull" factors wherein opportunities to contribute to science combine with hopes and/or expectations for the alleviation of symptoms. We highlight the significance of study design in decision making. aDBS is an innovative technology and not a completely new technology. Many participants expressed value in being part of research as an important consideration. We suggest that there are important implications when comparing patient perspectives vs. theoretical perspectives on the choice for or against aDBS. Additionally, it will be important how we communicate with patients especially in reference to the complexity of study design. Ultimately, this study reveals that there are benefits and potential risks when choosing a research study that involves implantation of a medical device.

Researcher Perspectives on Data Sharing in Deep Brain Stimulation.

The expansion of research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises important neuroethics and policy questions related to data sharing. However, there has been little empirical research on the perspectives of experts developing these technologies. We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with aDBS researchers regarding their data sharing practices and their perspectives on ethical and policy issues related to sharing. Researchers expressed support for and a commitment to sharing, with most saying that they were either sharing their data or would share in the future and that doing so was important for advancing the field. However, those who are sharing reported a variety of sharing partners, suggesting heterogeneity in sharing practices and lack of the broad sharing that would reflect principles of open science. Researchers described several concerns and barriers related to sharing, including privacy and confidentiality, the usability of shared data by others, ownership and control of data (including potential commercialization), and limited resources for sharing. They also suggested potential solutions to these challenges, including additional safeguards to address privacy issues, standardization and transparency in analysis to address issues of data usability, professional norms and heightened cooperation to address issues of ownership and control, and streamlining of data transmission to address resource limitations. Researchers also offered a range of views on the sensitivity of neural activity data (NAD) and data related to mental health in the context of sharing. These findings are an important input to deliberations by researchers, policymakers, neuroethicists, and other stakeholders as they navigate ethics and policy questions related to aDBS research.