BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is the focus of great interest and numerous studies. Given the state of this research, the risks of DBS, the uncertainty of direct benefits, and the potential for therapeutic misconception (TM), examination of research participants' perspectives is critical to addressing concerns about the adequacy of consent among people with TRD. METHODS: Among 31 participants considering DBS studies at two sites, self-report questionnaires were used to examine three dimensions of TM (eight true/false items). Additional Likert-scale items assessed perceptions of risks, potential benefits, and altruistic motivations. RESULTS: Participants correctly identified the surgery itself as the riskiest study procedure, although only four participants rated the surgery as "high risk." Most participants rated the entire DBS study as "moderate" or lower risk. Participants rated the likelihood of others benefiting in the future more strongly than they did the likelihood of personal benefit. Participants held positive attitudes toward research, and were moderately altruistic. Nearly two-thirds of the 31 participants (64.5%) answered at least one of the true/false TM items incorrectly. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals considering DBS studies for TRD demonstrated reasonable perceptions of risks and benefits, distinguished among procedural risks, and expressed hopes for personal benefit as well as altruism. Findings related to TM were mixed: Participants understood the experimental stage of DBS for depression and endorsed the possibility of no personal benefit, yet there was some evidence for TM. Although these findings are reassuring, investigators must nevertheless remain vigilant about identifying and addressing potential misconceptions.
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is the focus of great interest and numerous studies. Given the state of this research, the risks of DBS, the uncertainty of direct benefits, and the potential for therapeutic misconception (TM), examination of research participants' perspectives is critical to addressing concerns about the adequacy of consent among people with TRD. METHODS: Among 31 participants considering DBS studies at two sites, self-report questionnaires were used to examine three dimensions of TM (eight true/false items). Additional Likert-scale items assessed perceptions of risks, potential benefits, and altruistic motivations. RESULTS:Participants correctly identified the surgery itself as the riskiest study procedure, although only four participants rated the surgery as "high risk." Most participants rated the entire DBS study as "moderate" or lower risk. Participants rated the likelihood of others benefiting in the future more strongly than they did the likelihood of personal benefit. Participants held positive attitudes toward research, and were moderately altruistic. Nearly two-thirds of the 31 participants (64.5%) answered at least one of the true/false TM items incorrectly. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals considering DBS studies for TRD demonstrated reasonable perceptions of risks and benefits, distinguished among procedural risks, and expressed hopes for personal benefit as well as altruism. Findings related to TM were mixed: Participants understood the experimental stage of DBS for depression and endorsed the possibility of no personal benefit, yet there was some evidence for TM. Although these findings are reassuring, investigators must nevertheless remain vigilant about identifying and addressing potential misconceptions.
Entities:
Keywords:
informed consent; major depression; research benefits; research risks; therapeutic misconception
Authors: Sidney H Kennedy; Peter Giacobbe; Sakina J Rizvi; Franca M Placenza; Yasunori Nishikawa; Helen S Mayberg; Andres M Lozano Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Koen Demyttenaere; Ronny Bruffaerts; Jose Posada-Villa; Isabelle Gasquet; Viviane Kovess; Jean Pierre Lepine; Matthias C Angermeyer; Sebastian Bernert; Giovanni de Girolamo; Pierluigi Morosini; Gabriella Polidori; Takehiko Kikkawa; Norito Kawakami; Yutaka Ono; Tadashi Takeshima; Hidenori Uda; Elie G Karam; John A Fayyad; Aimee N Karam; Zeina N Mneimneh; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Guilherme Borges; Carmen Lara; Ron de Graaf; Johan Ormel; Oye Gureje; Yucun Shen; Yueqin Huang; Mingyuan Zhang; Jordi Alonso; Josep Maria Haro; Gemma Vilagut; Evelyn J Bromet; Semyon Gluzman; Charles Webb; Ronald C Kessler; Kathleen R Merikangas; James C Anthony; Michael R Von Korff; Philip S Wang; Traolach S Brugha; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Sing Lee; Steven Heeringa; Beth-Ellen Pennell; Alan M Zaslavsky; T Bedirhan Ustun; Somnath Chatterji Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Carl Erik Fisher; Laura B Dunn; Paul P Christopher; Paul E Holtzheimer; Yan Leykin; Helen S Mayberg; Sarah H Lisanby; Paul S Appelbaum Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Paul P Christopher; Michael D Stein; Sandra A Springer; Josiah D Rich; Jennifer E Johnson; Charles W Lidz Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2015-06-24
Authors: Tenzin Tsungmey; Jane Paik Kim; Laura B Dunn; Katie Ryan; Kyle Lane-McKinley; Laura Weiss Roberts Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 4.791