Neuroethical considerations and attitudes about neurostimulation as a fatigue countermeasure among emergency responders.

IF 1.5 Q3 ERGONOMICS
Frontiers in neuroergonomics Pub Date : 2024-12-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fnrgo.2024.1491941
Laura Y Cabrera, Alejandro Munoz, Ranjana K Mehta
{"title":"Neuroethical considerations and attitudes about neurostimulation as a fatigue countermeasure among emergency responders.","authors":"Laura Y Cabrera, Alejandro Munoz, Ranjana K Mehta","doi":"10.3389/fnrgo.2024.1491941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>First responders play a pivotal role in ensuring the wellbeing of individuals during critical situations. The demanding nature of their work exposes them to prolonged shifts and unpredictable situations, leading to elevated fatigue levels. Modern countermeasures to fatigue do not provide the best results. This study evaluates the acceptance and ethical considerations of a novel fatigue countermeasure using transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for fire and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To better understand first responders' perceptions and ethical concerns about this novel fatigue countermeasure in their work, we conducted semi-structured interviews with first responders (<i>N</i> = 20). Interviews were transcribed into text and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over half of responders (59%) were interested, but over a third had a cautionary stand. Half of the participants seemed to have positive views regarding acceptability; a few were more cautionary or hesitant. A main area of consideration was user control (75%), with the majority wanting to retain some control over when or whether to accept the stimulation. Just above half of the participants (64%) mentioned privacy concerns. Another relevant consideration, raised by 50% of participants, was safety and the potential impact of stimulation (e.g., side effects, long-term effects). Overall, participants thought they needed to understand the system better and agreed that more education and training would be required to make people more willing to use it.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our exploration into combating fatigue among first responders through tDCS has revealed promising initial reactions from the responder community. Findings from this study lay the groundwork for a promising solution, while still in a nascent design stage, to improve the effectiveness and resilience of first responders in fatiguing shifts and critical situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":517413,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in neuroergonomics","volume":"5 ","pages":"1491941"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11688297/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in neuroergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnrgo.2024.1491941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: First responders play a pivotal role in ensuring the wellbeing of individuals during critical situations. The demanding nature of their work exposes them to prolonged shifts and unpredictable situations, leading to elevated fatigue levels. Modern countermeasures to fatigue do not provide the best results. This study evaluates the acceptance and ethical considerations of a novel fatigue countermeasure using transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for fire and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel.

Methods: To better understand first responders' perceptions and ethical concerns about this novel fatigue countermeasure in their work, we conducted semi-structured interviews with first responders (N = 20). Interviews were transcribed into text and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results: Over half of responders (59%) were interested, but over a third had a cautionary stand. Half of the participants seemed to have positive views regarding acceptability; a few were more cautionary or hesitant. A main area of consideration was user control (75%), with the majority wanting to retain some control over when or whether to accept the stimulation. Just above half of the participants (64%) mentioned privacy concerns. Another relevant consideration, raised by 50% of participants, was safety and the potential impact of stimulation (e.g., side effects, long-term effects). Overall, participants thought they needed to understand the system better and agreed that more education and training would be required to make people more willing to use it.

Discussion: Our exploration into combating fatigue among first responders through tDCS has revealed promising initial reactions from the responder community. Findings from this study lay the groundwork for a promising solution, while still in a nascent design stage, to improve the effectiveness and resilience of first responders in fatiguing shifts and critical situations.

急救人员对神经刺激作为疲劳对策的神经伦理考虑和态度。
简介:在危急情况下,急救人员在确保个人健康方面发挥着关键作用。他们工作的高要求使他们面临长时间的轮班和不可预测的情况,导致疲劳程度上升。现代对抗疲劳的对策并没有提供最好的结果。本研究评估了对消防和紧急医疗服务(EMS)人员使用经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)的新型疲劳对策的接受程度和伦理考虑。方法:为了更好地了解急救人员在工作中对这种新型疲劳对策的看法和伦理问题,我们对急救人员进行了半结构化访谈(N = 20)。访谈被转录成文本,并使用定性内容分析进行分析。结果:超过一半的应答者(59%)对此感兴趣,但超过三分之一的人持谨慎态度。一半的参与者似乎对可接受性持积极态度;少数人则更为谨慎或犹豫。考虑的主要方面是用户控制(75%),大多数人希望保留一些何时或是否接受刺激的控制权。超过一半的参与者(64%)提到了隐私问题。50%的参与者提出的另一个相关考虑是安全性和刺激的潜在影响(例如,副作用,长期影响)。总体而言,与会者认为他们需要更好地了解该系统,并同意需要更多的教育和培训,以使人们更愿意使用该系统。讨论:我们对通过tDCS对抗第一响应者疲劳的探索揭示了响应者群体有希望的初步反应。这项研究的结果为一个有希望的解决方案奠定了基础,尽管仍处于初期设计阶段,以提高在疲劳班次和危急情况下第一响应者的有效性和弹性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信