Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. What Happens After a Neural Implant Study? Neuroethics Expert Workshop on Post-Trial Obligations.Ishan Dasgupta, Eran Klein, Laura Y. Cabrera, Winston Chiong, Ashley Feinsinger, Joseph J. Fins, Tobias Haeusermann, Saskia Hendriks, Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, Cynthia Kubu, Helen Mayberg, Khara Ramos, Adina Roskies, Lauren Sankary, Ashley Walton, Alik S. Widge & Sara Goering - 2024 - Neuroethics 17 (2):1-14.
    What happens at the end of a clinical trial for an investigational neural implant? It may be surprising to learn how difficult it is to answer this question. While new trials are initiated with increasing regularity, relatively little consensus exists on how best to conduct them, and even less on how to ethically end them. The landscape of recent neural implant trials demonstrates wide variability of what happens to research participants after an neural implant trial ends. Some former research participants (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Role of Family Members in Psychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation Trials: More Than Psychosocial Support.Marion Boulicault, Sara Goering, Eran Klein, Darin Dougherty & Alik S. Widge - 2023 - Neuroethics 16 (2):1-18.
    Family members can provide crucial support to individuals participating in clinical trials. In research on the “newest frontier” of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS)—the use of DBS for psychiatric conditions—family member support is frequently listed as a criterion for trial enrollment. Despite the significance of family members, qualitative ethics research on DBS for psychiatric conditions has focused almost exclusively on the perspectives and experiences of DBS recipients. This qualitative study is one of the first to include both DBS recipients and their (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Not-So-Straightforward Decisions to Keep or Explant a Device: When Does Neural Device Removal Become Patient Coercion?Frederic Gilbert, Paul Tubig & Alexander R. Harris - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 13 (4):230-232.
    In their article, Sankary et al. (2022) provided important preliminary findings on how research participants exiting from clinical trials engage in decisions related to the removal or post-trial us...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Asking questions that matter – Question prompt lists as tools for improving the consent process for neurotechnology clinical trials.Andreas Schönau, Sara Goering, Erika Versalovic, Natalia Montes, Tim Brown, Ishan Dasgupta & Eran Klein - 2022 - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 16.
    Implantable neurotechnology devices such as Brain Computer Interfaces and Deep Brain Stimulators are an increasing part of treating or exploring potential treatments for neurological and psychiatric disorders. While only a few devices are approved, many promising prospects for future devices are under investigation. The decision to participate in a clinical trial can be challenging, given a variety of risks to be taken into consideration. During the consent process, prospective participants might lack the language to consider those risks, feel unprepared, or (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Too Much Satisfaction? The Impact of the Interview Timing on the Meaning-Making Processes.Agnieszka K. Adamczyk - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 13 (4):239-241.
    In their article, Sankary et al. (2022) interviewed participants who underwent implantation (n = 16) and subsequent explantation (n = 9) of brain stimulation devices associated with their recent (n...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Situating Empirical Bioethics in Discussions of Post-Trial Responsibility.Nathan Higgins, John Gardner & Adrian Carter - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 13 (4):227-229.
    There is a growing recognition that the ongoing use of investigational neural implants requires continued access to clinical expertise and specialized healthcare (e.g., Hendriks et al., 2019). Howe...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Brain Device Research and the Underappreciated Role of Care Partners before, during, and Post-Trial.Amanda R. Merner, Joseph J. Fins & Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 13 (4):236-239.
    The number of clinical trials for experimental brain implants continues to grow, and with this growth comes an increased reliance upon patients with treatment-refractory conditions to volunteer as...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Leaving Users in the Dark: A Call to Define Responsibilities toward Users of Neural Implanted Devices.Odile C. Van Stuijvenberg, Annelien L. Bredenoord, Marike L. D. Broekman & Karin R. Jongsma - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 13 (4):233-236.
    Sankary et al. (2022) report the results of an empirical study on research participant experiences of exiting research at the end of clinical trials of deep-brain-stimulation (DBS) and responsive n...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Beyond “Ensuring Understanding”: Toward a Patient-Partnered Neuroethics of Brain Device Research.Meghan C. Halley, Tracy Dixon-Salazar & Anna Wexler - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 13 (4):241-244.
    The work of Sankary et al. (2022) provides valuable insights into the experiences of participants exiting brain device research. Empirical bioethics research such as this is critical to understandi...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations