涉及临床神经技术用户的定性研究:范围综述。

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Georg Starke, Tugba Basaran Akmazoglu, Annalisa Colucci, Mareike Vermehren, Amanda van Beinum, Maria Buthut, Surjo R Soekadar, Christoph Bublitz, Jennifer A Chandler, Marcello Ienca
{"title":"涉及临床神经技术用户的定性研究:范围综述。","authors":"Georg Starke, Tugba Basaran Akmazoglu, Annalisa Colucci, Mareike Vermehren, Amanda van Beinum, Maria Buthut, Surjo R Soekadar, Christoph Bublitz, Jennifer A Chandler, Marcello Ienca","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01087-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rise of a new generation of intelligent neuroprostheses, brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and adaptive closed-loop brain stimulation devices hastens the clinical deployment of neurotechnologies to treat neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. However, it remains unclear how these nascent technologies may impact the subjective experience of their users. To inform this debate, it is crucial to have a solid understanding how more established current technologies already affect their users. In recent years, researchers have used qualitative research methods to explore the subjective experience of individuals who become users of clinical neurotechnology. Yet, a synthesis of these more recent findings focusing on qualitative methods is still lacking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To address this gap in the literature, we systematically searched five databases for original research articles that investigated subjective experiences of persons using or receiving neuroprosthetics, BCIs or neuromodulation with qualitative interviews and raised normative questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>36 research articles were included and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Our findings synthesise the current scientific literature and reveal a pronounced focus on usability and other technical aspects of user experience. In parallel, they highlight a relative neglect of considerations regarding agency, self-perception, personal identity and subjective experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our synthesis of the existing qualitative literature on clinical neurotechnology highlights the need to expand the current methodological focus as to investigate also non-technical aspects of user experience. Given the critical role considerations of agency, self-perception and personal identity play in assessing the ethical and legal significance of these technologies, our findings reveal a critical gap in the existing literature. This review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current qualitative research landscape on neurotechnology and the limitations thereof. These findings can inform researchers on how to study the subjective experience of neurotechnology users more holistically and build patient-centred neurotechnology.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11323440/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative studies involving users of clinical neurotechnology: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Georg Starke, Tugba Basaran Akmazoglu, Annalisa Colucci, Mareike Vermehren, Amanda van Beinum, Maria Buthut, Surjo R Soekadar, Christoph Bublitz, Jennifer A Chandler, Marcello Ienca\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-024-01087-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rise of a new generation of intelligent neuroprostheses, brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and adaptive closed-loop brain stimulation devices hastens the clinical deployment of neurotechnologies to treat neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. However, it remains unclear how these nascent technologies may impact the subjective experience of their users. To inform this debate, it is crucial to have a solid understanding how more established current technologies already affect their users. In recent years, researchers have used qualitative research methods to explore the subjective experience of individuals who become users of clinical neurotechnology. Yet, a synthesis of these more recent findings focusing on qualitative methods is still lacking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To address this gap in the literature, we systematically searched five databases for original research articles that investigated subjective experiences of persons using or receiving neuroprosthetics, BCIs or neuromodulation with qualitative interviews and raised normative questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>36 research articles were included and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Our findings synthesise the current scientific literature and reveal a pronounced focus on usability and other technical aspects of user experience. In parallel, they highlight a relative neglect of considerations regarding agency, self-perception, personal identity and subjective experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our synthesis of the existing qualitative literature on clinical neurotechnology highlights the need to expand the current methodological focus as to investigate also non-technical aspects of user experience. Given the critical role considerations of agency, self-perception and personal identity play in assessing the ethical and legal significance of these technologies, our findings reveal a critical gap in the existing literature. This review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current qualitative research landscape on neurotechnology and the limitations thereof. These findings can inform researchers on how to study the subjective experience of neurotechnology users more holistically and build patient-centred neurotechnology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11323440/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01087-z\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01087-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:新一代智能神经义肢、脑机接口(BCI)和自适应闭环脑刺激设备的兴起,加速了治疗神经和神经精神疾病的神经技术的临床应用。然而,目前仍不清楚这些新兴技术会如何影响其用户的主观体验。要为这一讨论提供信息,关键是要扎实了解当前较为成熟的技术是如何影响其用户的。近年来,研究人员使用定性研究方法来探索临床神经技术用户的主观体验。然而,目前仍缺乏对这些侧重于定性方法的最新研究成果的综述:为了填补这一文献空白,我们在五个数据库中系统检索了原创研究文章,这些文章通过定性访谈调查了使用或接受神经义肢、BCIs 或神经调控的人员的主观体验,并提出了规范性问题:结果:共收录了 36 篇研究文章,并采用定性内容分析法进行了分析。我们的研究结果综合了当前的科学文献,显示出研究重点明显集中在可用性和用户体验的其他技术方面。与此同时,这些研究还突出强调了对代理、自我感知、个人身份和主观体验的相对忽视:我们对有关临床神经技术的现有定性文献进行了综述,强调有必要扩大目前的方法论重点,以便同时研究用户体验的非技术方面。考虑到代理、自我认知和个人身份在评估这些技术的伦理和法律意义方面的关键作用,我们的研究结果揭示了现有文献中的一个重要空白。本综述全面综述了当前有关神经技术的定性研究情况及其局限性。这些发现可以为研究人员提供信息,帮助他们更全面地研究神经技术用户的主观体验,并建立以患者为中心的神经技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Qualitative studies involving users of clinical neurotechnology: a scoping review.

Background: The rise of a new generation of intelligent neuroprostheses, brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and adaptive closed-loop brain stimulation devices hastens the clinical deployment of neurotechnologies to treat neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. However, it remains unclear how these nascent technologies may impact the subjective experience of their users. To inform this debate, it is crucial to have a solid understanding how more established current technologies already affect their users. In recent years, researchers have used qualitative research methods to explore the subjective experience of individuals who become users of clinical neurotechnology. Yet, a synthesis of these more recent findings focusing on qualitative methods is still lacking.

Methods: To address this gap in the literature, we systematically searched five databases for original research articles that investigated subjective experiences of persons using or receiving neuroprosthetics, BCIs or neuromodulation with qualitative interviews and raised normative questions.

Results: 36 research articles were included and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Our findings synthesise the current scientific literature and reveal a pronounced focus on usability and other technical aspects of user experience. In parallel, they highlight a relative neglect of considerations regarding agency, self-perception, personal identity and subjective experience.

Conclusions: Our synthesis of the existing qualitative literature on clinical neurotechnology highlights the need to expand the current methodological focus as to investigate also non-technical aspects of user experience. Given the critical role considerations of agency, self-perception and personal identity play in assessing the ethical and legal significance of these technologies, our findings reveal a critical gap in the existing literature. This review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current qualitative research landscape on neurotechnology and the limitations thereof. These findings can inform researchers on how to study the subjective experience of neurotechnology users more holistically and build patient-centred neurotechnology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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