精神障碍脑机接口临床研究的伦理治理:一项修正德尔菲研究。

IF 6.8 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
General Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-07-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/gpsych-2024-101755
Qing Zhang, Chen Zhang, Haiqing Ji, Jing Chen, Xingchao Wang, Tianhong Zhang, Pinan Liu, Zhen Wang, Yifeng Xu
{"title":"精神障碍脑机接口临床研究的伦理治理:一项修正德尔菲研究。","authors":"Qing Zhang, Chen Zhang, Haiqing Ji, Jing Chen, Xingchao Wang, Tianhong Zhang, Pinan Liu, Zhen Wang, Yifeng Xu","doi":"10.1136/gpsych-2024-101755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong></p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical brain-computer interface (BCI) for mental disorders is an emerging interdisciplinary research field, posing new ethical concerns and challenges, yet lacking practical ethical governance guidelines for stakeholders and the entire community.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aims to establish a multidisciplinary consensus of principles for ethical governance of clinical BCI research for mental disorders and offer practical ethical guidance to stakeholders involved.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review, symposium and roundtable discussions, and a pre-Delphi (round 0) survey were conducted to form the questionnaire for the three-round modified Delphi study. Two rounds of surveys, followed by a third round of independent interviews of 25 experts from BCI-related research domains, were involved. We conducted quantitative analysis of responses and agreements among experts to reveal the consensus and differences regarding the ethical governance of mental BCI research from a multidisciplinary perspective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Delphi panel emphasised important concerns of ethical review practices and ethical principles within the BCI context, identified qualified and highly influential institutions and personnel in conducting and advancing clinical BCI research, and recognised prioritised aspects in the risk-benefit evaluation. Experts expressed diverse opinions on specific ethical concerns, including concerns about invasive technology, its impact on humanity and potential social consequences. Agreement was reached that the practices of ethical governance of clinical BCI for mental disorders should focus on patient voluntariness, autonomy, long-term effects and related assessments of BCI interventions, as well as privacy protection, transparent reporting and ensuring that the research is conducted in qualified institutions with strong data security.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ethical governance of clinical research on BCI for mental disorders should include interdisciplinary experts to balance various needs and incorporate the expertise of different stakeholders to avoid serious ethical issues. It requires scientifically grounded approaches, continuous monitoring and interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure evidence-based policies, comprehensive risk assessments and transparency, thereby promoting responsible innovations and protecting patient rights and well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":12549,"journal":{"name":"General Psychiatry","volume":"38 4","pages":"e101755"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12306203/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical governance of clinical research on the brain-computer interface for mental disorders: a modified Delphi study.\",\"authors\":\"Qing Zhang, Chen Zhang, Haiqing Ji, Jing Chen, Xingchao Wang, Tianhong Zhang, Pinan Liu, Zhen Wang, Yifeng Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/gpsych-2024-101755\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong></p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical brain-computer interface (BCI) for mental disorders is an emerging interdisciplinary research field, posing new ethical concerns and challenges, yet lacking practical ethical governance guidelines for stakeholders and the entire community.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aims to establish a multidisciplinary consensus of principles for ethical governance of clinical BCI research for mental disorders and offer practical ethical guidance to stakeholders involved.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review, symposium and roundtable discussions, and a pre-Delphi (round 0) survey were conducted to form the questionnaire for the three-round modified Delphi study. Two rounds of surveys, followed by a third round of independent interviews of 25 experts from BCI-related research domains, were involved. We conducted quantitative analysis of responses and agreements among experts to reveal the consensus and differences regarding the ethical governance of mental BCI research from a multidisciplinary perspective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Delphi panel emphasised important concerns of ethical review practices and ethical principles within the BCI context, identified qualified and highly influential institutions and personnel in conducting and advancing clinical BCI research, and recognised prioritised aspects in the risk-benefit evaluation. Experts expressed diverse opinions on specific ethical concerns, including concerns about invasive technology, its impact on humanity and potential social consequences. Agreement was reached that the practices of ethical governance of clinical BCI for mental disorders should focus on patient voluntariness, autonomy, long-term effects and related assessments of BCI interventions, as well as privacy protection, transparent reporting and ensuring that the research is conducted in qualified institutions with strong data security.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ethical governance of clinical research on BCI for mental disorders should include interdisciplinary experts to balance various needs and incorporate the expertise of different stakeholders to avoid serious ethical issues. It requires scientifically grounded approaches, continuous monitoring and interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure evidence-based policies, comprehensive risk assessments and transparency, thereby promoting responsible innovations and protecting patient rights and well-being.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"General Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"38 4\",\"pages\":\"e101755\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12306203/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"General Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2024-101755\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"General Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2024-101755","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:精神障碍临床脑机接口(BCI)是一个新兴的跨学科研究领域,提出了新的伦理问题和挑战,但缺乏对利益相关者和整个社区的实用伦理治理指南。目的:本研究旨在建立精神障碍临床脑机接口研究伦理治理原则的多学科共识,并为相关利益相关者提供实用的伦理指导。方法:采用系统的文献综述、专题讨论会和圆桌讨论、德尔菲前(第0轮)调查等方法,形成三轮修正德尔菲研究的问卷。本研究共进行了两轮调查,随后进行了第三轮独立访谈,访谈对象为来自脑机接口相关研究领域的25位专家。我们对专家的反应和意见进行了定量分析,从多学科的角度揭示了关于精神脑接口研究伦理治理的共识和差异。结果:德尔菲专家组强调了脑机接口背景下伦理审查实践和伦理原则的重要问题,确定了开展和推进临床脑机接口研究的合格且具有高度影响力的机构和人员,并确定了风险-收益评估中的优先事项。专家们对具体的伦理问题表达了不同的意见,包括对侵入性技术、其对人类的影响和潜在的社会后果的担忧。双方一致认为,精神障碍临床脑机接口的伦理治理实践应注重患者的自愿、自主、脑机接口干预措施的长期效果和相关评估,以及隐私保护、透明报告和确保研究在具有强数据安全性的合格机构进行。结论:精神障碍脑机接口临床研究的伦理治理应包括跨学科专家,以平衡各种需求,并结合不同利益相关者的专业知识,以避免严重的伦理问题。它需要有科学依据的方法、持续监测和跨学科合作,以确保以证据为基础的政策、全面的风险评估和透明度,从而促进负责任的创新并保护患者的权利和福祉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethical governance of clinical research on the brain-computer interface for mental disorders: a modified Delphi study.

Abstract:

Background: Clinical brain-computer interface (BCI) for mental disorders is an emerging interdisciplinary research field, posing new ethical concerns and challenges, yet lacking practical ethical governance guidelines for stakeholders and the entire community.

Aims: This study aims to establish a multidisciplinary consensus of principles for ethical governance of clinical BCI research for mental disorders and offer practical ethical guidance to stakeholders involved.

Methods: A systematic literature review, symposium and roundtable discussions, and a pre-Delphi (round 0) survey were conducted to form the questionnaire for the three-round modified Delphi study. Two rounds of surveys, followed by a third round of independent interviews of 25 experts from BCI-related research domains, were involved. We conducted quantitative analysis of responses and agreements among experts to reveal the consensus and differences regarding the ethical governance of mental BCI research from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Results: The Delphi panel emphasised important concerns of ethical review practices and ethical principles within the BCI context, identified qualified and highly influential institutions and personnel in conducting and advancing clinical BCI research, and recognised prioritised aspects in the risk-benefit evaluation. Experts expressed diverse opinions on specific ethical concerns, including concerns about invasive technology, its impact on humanity and potential social consequences. Agreement was reached that the practices of ethical governance of clinical BCI for mental disorders should focus on patient voluntariness, autonomy, long-term effects and related assessments of BCI interventions, as well as privacy protection, transparent reporting and ensuring that the research is conducted in qualified institutions with strong data security.

Conclusions: Ethical governance of clinical research on BCI for mental disorders should include interdisciplinary experts to balance various needs and incorporate the expertise of different stakeholders to avoid serious ethical issues. It requires scientifically grounded approaches, continuous monitoring and interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure evidence-based policies, comprehensive risk assessments and transparency, thereby promoting responsible innovations and protecting patient rights and well-being.

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
General Psychiatry
General Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
21.90
自引率
2.50%
发文量
848
期刊介绍: General Psychiatry (GPSYCH), an open-access journal established in 1959, has been a pioneer in disseminating leading psychiatry research. Addressing a global audience of psychiatrists and mental health professionals, the journal covers diverse topics and publishes original research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, forums on topical issues, case reports, research methods in psychiatry, and a distinctive section on 'Biostatistics in Psychiatry'. The scope includes original articles on basic research, clinical research, community-based studies, and ecological studies, encompassing a broad spectrum of psychiatric interests.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信