Background: Electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback is a type of biofeedback that purportedly teaches users how to control their brainwaves. Although neurofeedback is currently offered by thousands of providers worldwide, its provision is contested, as its effectiveness beyond a placebo effect is unproven. While scholars have voiced numerous ethical concerns about neurofeedback-regarding opportunity cost, physical and psychological harms, financial cost, and informed consent-to date these concerns have remained theoretical. This pilot study aimed to provide insights on whether these issues were supported by empirical data from the experiences of neurofeedback users. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals who had used EEG neurofeedback for themselves and/or for a child. Results: The majority of respondents (N = 36) were female (75%), white (92%), and of higher socioeconomic status relative to the U.S. population. Among adult users (n = 33), most (78.8%) resorted to neurofeedback after having tried other therapies and were satisfied with treatment (81.8%). The majority paid for neurofeedback out-of-pocket (72.7%) and considered it to be good value for money (84.8%). More than half (57.6%) considered neurofeedback to be a scientifically well-established therapy. However, of those, 78.9%were using neurofeedback for indications not adequately supported by scientific evidence. Conclusion: Concerns regarding opportunity cost, physical and psychological harms, and financial cost are not substantiated by our findings. Our results partially support concerns regarding insufficient understanding of limitations. This study underlines the disconnect between some of the theoretical concerns raised by scholars regarding the use of non-validated therapies and the lived experiences of users.
Background: Electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback is a type of biofeedback that purportedly teaches users how to control their brainwaves. Although neurofeedback is currently offered by thousands of providers worldwide, its provision is contested, as its effectiveness beyond a placebo effect is unproven. While scholars have voiced numerous ethical concerns about neurofeedback-regarding opportunity cost, physical and psychological harms, financial cost, and informed consent-to date these concerns have remained theoretical. This pilot study aimed to provide insights on whether these issues were supported by empirical data from the experiences of neurofeedback users. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals who had used EEG neurofeedback for themselves and/or for a child. Results: The majority of respondents (N = 36) were female (75%), white (92%), and of higher socioeconomic status relative to the U.S. population. Among adult users (n = 33), most (78.8%) resorted to neurofeedback after having tried other therapies and were satisfied with treatment (81.8%). The majority paid for neurofeedback out-of-pocket (72.7%) and considered it to be good value for money (84.8%). More than half (57.6%) considered neurofeedback to be a scientifically well-established therapy. However, of those, 78.9%were using neurofeedback for indications not adequately supported by scientific evidence. Conclusion: Concerns regarding opportunity cost, physical and psychological harms, and financial cost are not substantiated by our findings. Our results partially support concerns regarding insufficient understanding of limitations. This study underlines the disconnect between some of the theoretical concerns raised by scholars regarding the use of non-validated therapies and the lived experiences of users.
Entities:
Keywords:
EEG Neurofeedback; complementary and alternative medicine; informed consent; non-validated therapies; opportunity cost
Authors: H N Alexander Logemann; Marieke M Lansbergen; Titus W D P Van Os; Koen B E Böcker; J Leon Kenemans Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2010-05-15 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Matthew E Falagas; Ioanna P Korbila; Konstantina P Giannopoulou; Barbara K Kondilis; George Peppas Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.565