Clinician Perspectives on Levels of Evidence and Oversight for Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Childhood OCD.

Approximately 10-20% of children with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have treatment-resistant presentations, and there is likely interest in developing interventions for this patient group, which may include deep brain stimulation (DBS). The World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery has argued that at least two successful randomized controlled trials should be available before DBS treatment for a psychiatric disorder is considered "established." The FDA approved DBS for adults with treatment-resistant OCD under a humanitarian device exemption (HDE) in 2009, which requires that a device be used to manage or treat a condition impacting 8,000 or fewer patients annually in the United States. DBS is currently offered to children ages 7 and older with treatment-resistant dystonia under an HDE. Ethical and empirical work are needed to evaluate whether and under what conditions it might be appropriate to offer DBS for treatment-resistant childhood OCD. To address this gap, we report qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 25 clinicians with expertise in this area. First, we report clinician perspectives on acceptable levels of evidence to offer DBS in this patient population. Second, we describe their perspectives on institutional policies or protocols that might be needed to effectively provide care for this patient population.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Pediatric Dystonia: Clinicians' Perspectives on the Most Pressing Ethical Challenges.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric deep brain stimulation (pDBS) is commonly used to manage treatment-resistant primary dystonias with favorable results and more frequently used for secondary dystonia to improve quality of life. There has been little systematic empirical neuroethics research to identify ethical challenges and potential solutions to ensure responsible use of DBS in pediatric populations. METHODS: Clinicians (n = 29) who care for minors with treatment-resistant dystonia were interviewed for their perspectives on the most pressing ethical issues in pDBS. RESULTS: Using thematic content analysis to explore salient themes, clinicians identified four pressing concerns: (1) uncertainty about risks and benefits of pDBS (22/29; 72%) that poses a challenge to informed decision-making; (2) ethically navigating decision-making roles (15/29; 52%), including how best to integrate perspectives from diverse stakeholders (patient, caregiver, clinician) and how to manage surrogate decisions on behalf of pediatric patients with limited capacity to make autonomous decisions; (3) information scarcity effects on informed consent and decision quality (15/29; 52%) in the context of patient and caregivers' expectations for treatment; and (4) narrow regulatory status and access (7/29; 24%) such as the lack of FDA-approved indications that contribute to decision-making uncertainty and liability and potentially limit access to DBS among patients who may benefit from it. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that clinicians are primarily concerned about ethical limitations of making difficult decisions in the absence of informational, regulatory, and financial supports. We discuss two solutions already underway, including supported decision-making to address uncertainty and further data sharing to enhance clinical knowledge and discovery.

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.

Child and adolescent psychiatrists' use, attitudes, and understanding of genetic testing and pharmacogenetics in clinical practice.

The purpose of this study was to report current practices and attitudes of child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAP) regarding diagnostic genetic and pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing. We surveyed 958 US-based practicing CAP. 54.9% of respondents indicated that they had ordered/referred for a genetic test in the past 12 months. 87% of respondents agreed that it is their role to discuss genetic information regarding psychiatric conditions with their patients; however, 45% rated their knowledge of genetic testing practice guidelines as poor/very poor. The most ordered test was PGx (32.2%), followed by chromosomal microarray (23.0%). 73.4% reported that PGx is at least slightly useful in child and adolescent psychiatry. Most (62.8%) were asked by a patient/family to order PGx in the past 12 months and 41.7% reported they would order PGx in response to a family request. Those who ordered a PGx test were more likely to have been asked by a patient/family and to work in private practice. 13.8% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that a PGx test can predict the effectiveness of specific antidepressants. Some respondents also indicated they would make clinical changes based on PGx information even if a medication was currently effective and there were no side effects. Genetic testing has become routine clinical care in child and adolescent psychiatry. Despite this, many providers rate their associated knowledge as poor/very poor. Patient requests were associated with ordering practices and providers misinterpretation of PGx may be leading to unnecessary changes in clinical management. There is need for further education and support for clinicians.

Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists' Use, Attitudes, and Understanding of Genetic Tests in Clinical Practice.

Objective: To report current practices and attitudes of child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAP) regarding diagnostic genetic and pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing. Methods: Survey of 958 US-based practicing CAP. Results: 54.9% of respondents indicated that they had ordered/referred for a genetic test in the past 12 months. 87% of respondents agreed that it is their role to discuss genetic information regarding psychiatric conditions with their patients; however, 45% rated their knowledge of genetic testing practice guidelines as poor/very poor. The most ordered test was PGx (32.2%), followed by chromosomal microarray (23.0%). 73.4% reported that PGx is at least slightly useful in child and adolescent psychiatry. Most (62.8%) were asked by a patient/family to order PGx in the past 12 months and 41.7% reported they would order PGx in response to a family request. Those who ordered a PGx test were more likely to have been asked by a patient/family and to work in private practice. 13.8% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that a PGx test can predict the effectiveness of specific antidepressants. Some respondents also indicated they would make clinical changes based on PGx information even if a medication was currently effective and there were no side effects. Conclusions: Genetic testing has become routine clinical care in child and adolescent psychiatry. Despite this, many providers rate their associated knowledge as poor/very poor. Patient requests were associated with ordering practices and providers misinterpretation of PGx may be leading to unnecessary changes in clinical management. There is need for further education and support for clinicians.

Clinical and Psychosocial Factors Considered When Deciding Whether to Offer Deep Brain Stimulation for Childhood Dystonia.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood dystonia is often nonresponsive to medications, and refractory cases are increasingly being treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS). However, many have noted that there is little consensus about when DBS should be offered, and there has been little examination of clinicians' decision-making process when determining whether to offer DBS for childhood dystonia. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify and examine the factors considered by pediatric movement disorder specialists before offering DBS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semistructured interviews (N = 29) with pediatric dystonia clinicians were conducted, transcribed, and coded. Using thematic content analysis, nine central themes were identified when clinicians were asked about key factors, clinical factors, and psychosocial factors considered before offering pediatric DBS. RESULTS: Clinicians identified nine main factors. Five of these were classified primarily as clinical factors: early intervention and younger age (raised by 86% of respondents), disease progression and symptom severity (83%), etiology and genetic status (79%), clinicians' perceived risks and benefits of DBS for the patient (79%), and exhaustion of other treatment options (55%). The remaining four were classified primarily as psychosocial factors: social and family support (raised by 97% of respondents), patient and caregiver expectations about outcomes and understanding of DBS treatment (90%), impact of dystonia on quality of life (69%), and financial resources and access to care (31%). CONCLUSIONS: Candidacy determinations, in this context, are complicated by an interrelation of clinical and psychosocial factors that contribute to the decision. There is potential for bias when considering family support and quality of life. Uncertainty of outcomes related to the etiology of dystonia makes candidacy judgments challenging. More systematic examination of the characteristics and criteria used to identify pediatric patients with dystonia who can significantly benefit from DBS is necessary to develop clear guidelines and promote the well-being of these children.

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.

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.

Researchers' Ethical Concerns About Using Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation for Enhancement.

The capacity of next-generation closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation devices (aDBS) to read (measure neural activity) and write (stimulate brain regions or circuits) shows great potential to effectively manage movement, seizure, and psychiatric disorders, and also raises the possibility of using aDBS to electively (non-therapeutically) modulate mood, cognition, and prosociality. What separates aDBS from most neurotechnologies (e.g. transcranial stimulation) currently used for enhancement is that aDBS remains an invasive, surgically-implanted technology with a risk-benefit ratio significantly different when applied to diseased versus non-diseased individuals. Despite a large discourse about the ethics of enhancement, no empirical studies yet examine perspectives on enhancement from within the aDBS research community. We interviewed 23 aDBS researchers about their attitudes toward expanding aDBS use for enhancement. A thematic content analysis revealed that researchers share ethical concerns related to (1) safety and security; (2) enhancement as unnecessary, unnatural or aberrant; and (3) fairness, equality, and distributive justice. Most (70%) researchers felt that enhancement applications for DBS will eventually be technically feasible and that attempts to develop such applications for DBS are already happening (particularly for military purposes). However, researchers unanimously (100%) felt that DBS ideally should not be considered for enhancement until researchers better understand brain target localization and functioning. While many researchers acknowledged controversies highlighted by scholars and ethicists, such as potential impacts on personhood, authenticity, autonomy and privacy, their ethical concerns reflect considerations of both gravity and perceived near-term likelihood.

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.

Pressing ethical issues in considering pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) among adults is the first psychiatric indication of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to receive an FDA Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE). Given the HDE approval and encouraging evidence that has since emerged, exploration of DBS for OCD may expand to adolescents in the future. More than 100,000 adolescents in the U.S. suffer from refractory OCD, and there is already a precedent for the transition of DBS in adults to children in the case of dystonia. However, the risk-benefit analysis of pediatric DBS for OCD may be more complex and raise different ethical questions compared to pediatric DBS for dystonia. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to gain insight into pressing ethical issues related to using DBS in adolescents with OCD. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 25) caring for pediatric patients with refractory OCD. Interview transcripts were coded with MAXQDA 2018 software and analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Five central themes were identified in clinician responses, three of which were exacerbated in the pediatric DBS setting. Clinicians expressed concerns related to conditions of decision-making including adolescents' capacity to assent (80%), the lack of evidence about the outcomes and potential unknown effects of using DBS in adolescents with OCD (68%), and the importance of exhausting other treatment options before considering DBS (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to address clinician concerns include implementation of validated decision support tools and further research into the outcomes of pediatric DBS for OCD to establish clear guidelines for patient selection.

Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists' Perceptions of Utility and Self-rated Knowledge of Genetic Testing Predict Usage for Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is associated with numerous genetic syndromes.1 Practice guidelines from various medical specialty societies, such as American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), American College of Medical Genetics, American Neurological Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics, indicate that genetic testing should be part of the evaluation for ASD.1-4 Studies have shown, however, that many patients do not receive indicated genetic testing; reported rates of testing vary widely, ranging from 1.5% to 60% of patients receiving genetic testing as part of the evaluation for ASD.4-8 Child and adolescent psychiatrists practicing in the United States (approximately 8300)9 far outnumber developmental behavioral pediatricians (approximately 900) and child neurologists (approximately 900), but in 1 study child and adolescent psychiatrists were the least likely to order genetic testing during the evaluation of patients with ASD diagnoses.6 Thus, it is critical to understand attitudes of child and adolescent psychiatrists toward genetic testing and other barriers to genetic testing to optimize adherence to practice guidelines for appropriate genetic testing in people with ASD. A survey to capture the current practice, knowledge, and perceptions toward genetic testing was developed by content matter experts that included child and adolescent psychiatrists, psychologists, and genetic counselors as well as lawyers, anthropologists, and bioethicists with expertise in ethical, legal, and social implications of genetics.

Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers.

Many research sponsors and genetic researchers agree that some medically relevant genetic findings should be offered to participants. The scarcity of research specific to returning genetic results related to psychiatric disorders hinders the ability to develop ethically justified and empirically informed guidelines for responsible return of results for these conditions. We surveyed 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries to examine their perceptions of challenges to returning individual results and views about best practices for the process of offering and returning results. Most researchers believed that disclosure of results should be delayed if a patient-participant is experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms. Respondents felt that there is little research on the impact of returning results to participants with psychiatric disorders and agreed that return of psychiatric genetics results to patient-participants may lead to discrimination by insurance companies or other third parties. Almost half of researchers believed results should be returned through a participant's treating psychiatrist, but many felt that clinicians lack knowledge about how to manage genetic research results. Most researchers thought results should be disclosed by genetic counselors or medical geneticists and in person; however, almost half also supported disclosure via telemedicine. This is the first global survey to examine the perspectives of researchers with experience working with this patient population and with these conditions. Their perspectives can help inform the development of much-needed guidelines to promote responsible return of results related to psychiatric conditions to patients with psychiatric disorders.

Return of results in a global survey of psychiatric genetics researchers: practices, attitudes, and knowledge.

PURPOSE: Patient-participants in psychiatric genetics research may be at an increased risk for negative psychosocial impacts related to the return of genetic research results. Examining psychiatric genetics researchers' return of results practices and perspectives can aid the development of empirically informed and ethically sound guidelines. METHODS: A survey of 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries was conducted to examine current return of results practices, attitudes, and knowledge. RESULTS: Most respondents (61%) reported that their studies generated medically relevant genomic findings. Although 24% have returned results to individual participants, 52% of those involved in decisions about return of results plan to return or continue to return results. Respondents supported offering "medically actionable" results related to psychiatric disorders (82%), and the majority agreed non-medically actionable risks for Huntington (71%) and Alzheimer disease (64%) should be offered. About half (49%) of respondents supported offering reliable polygenic risk scores for psychiatric conditions. Despite plans to return, only 14% of researchers agreed there are adequate guidelines for returning results, and 59% rated their knowledge about how to manage the process for returning results as poor. CONCLUSION: Psychiatric genetics researchers support returning a wide range of results to patient-participants, but they lack adequate knowledge and guidelines.

Researcher Perspectives on Ethical Considerations in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Trials.

Interest and investment in closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) systems have quickly expanded due to this neurotechnology's potential to more safely and effectively treat refractory movement and psychiatric disorders compared to conventional DBS. A large neuroethics literature outlines potential ethical concerns about conventional DBS and aDBS systems. Few studies, however, have examined stakeholder perspectives about ethical issues in aDBS research and other next-generation DBS devices. To help fill this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers involved in aDBS trials (n = 23) to gain insight into the most pressing ethical questions in aDBS research and any concerns about specific features of aDBS devices, including devices' ability to measure brain activity, automatically adjust stimulation, and store neural data. Using thematic content analysis, we identified 8 central themes in researcher responses. The need to measure and store neural data for aDBS raised concerns among researchers about data privacy and security issues (noted by 91% of researchers), including the avoidance of unintended or unwanted third-party access to data. Researchers reflected on the risks and safety (83%) of aDBS due to the experimental nature of automatically modulating then observing stimulation effects outside a controlled clinical setting and in relation to need for surgical battery changes. Researchers also stressed the importance of ensuring informed consent and adequate patient understanding (74%). Concerns related to automaticity and device programming (65%) were discussed, including current uncertainties about biomarker validity. Additionally, researchers discussed the potential impacts of automatic stimulation on patients' autonomy and control over stimulation (57%). Lastly, researchers discussed concerns related to patient selection (defining criteria for candidacy) (39%), challenges of ensuring post-trial access to care and device maintenance (39%), and potential effects on personality and identity (30%). To help address researcher concerns, we discuss the need to minimize cybersecurity vulnerabilities, advance biomarker validity, promote the balance of device control between patients and clinicians, and enhance ongoing informed consent. The findings from this study will help inform policies that will maximize the benefits and minimize potential harms of aDBS and other next-generation DBS devices.

Pediatric Deep Brain Stimulation for Dystonia: Current State and Ethical Considerations.

Dystonia is a movement disorder that can have a debilitating impact on motor functions and quality of life. There are 250,000 cases in the United States, most with childhood onset. Due to the limited effectiveness and side effects of available treatments, pediatric deep brain stimulation (pDBS) has emerged as an intervention for refractory dystonia. However, there is limited clinical and neuroethics research in this area of clinical practice. This paper examines whether it is ethically justified to offer pDBS to children with refractory dystonia. Given the favorable risk-benefit profile, it is concluded that offering pDBS is ethically justified for certain etiologies of dystonia, but it is less clear for others. In addition, various ethical and policy concerns are discussed, which need to be addressed to optimize the practice of offering pDBS for dystonia. Strategies are proposed to help address these concerns as pDBS continues to expand.

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.

Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants.

PURPOSE: Large-scale array-based and sequencing studies have advanced our understanding of the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders, but also increased the potential to generate an exponentially larger amount of clinically relevant findings. As genomic testing becomes more widespread in psychiatry research, urgency grows to establish best practices for offering return of results (RoR) to individuals at risk or diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. METHODS: We interviewed an international sample (n = 39) of psychiatric genetics researchers to examine conceptualizations of "best practices" for RoR to individual research participants. RESULTS: While the vast majority of researchers do not offer RoR, most believed medically actionable findings (85%) and clinically valid but non-medically actionable findings (54%) should be offered. Researchers identified three main areas for improvement: interfacing with individual participants; interdisciplinary training, guidance, and integration; and quality planning and resource allocation for returning results. CONCLUSION: There are significant gaps between researchers' visions for "best" versus "actual" RoR practices. While researchers call for participant-centered practices, including consent practices that consider any special needs of participants with psychiatric disorders, return of individually meaningful results, and effective follow-up and provisions for treatment, the current reality is that consent and RoR practices lack standardized and evidence-based norms.