机会成本还是机会损失:脑电神经反馈用户的伦理问题和态度的实证评估。

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Neuroethics Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-23 DOI:10.1007/s12152-022-09506-x
Louiza Kalokairinou, Rebekah Choi, Ashwini Nagappan, Anna Wexler
{"title":"机会成本还是机会损失:脑电神经反馈用户的伦理问题和态度的实证评估。","authors":"Louiza Kalokairinou,&nbsp;Rebekah Choi,&nbsp;Ashwini Nagappan,&nbsp;Anna Wexler","doi":"10.1007/s12152-022-09506-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals who had used EEG neurofeedback for themselves and/or for a child.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9555209/pdf/nihms-1838869.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opportunity Cost or Opportunity Lost: An Empirical Assessment of Ethical Concerns and Attitudes of EEG Neurofeedback Users.\",\"authors\":\"Louiza Kalokairinou,&nbsp;Rebekah Choi,&nbsp;Ashwini Nagappan,&nbsp;Anna Wexler\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12152-022-09506-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with individuals who had used EEG neurofeedback for themselves and/or for a child.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9555209/pdf/nihms-1838869.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09506-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09506-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:脑电图(EEG)神经反馈是一种生物反馈,据称是教用户如何控制自己的脑电波。尽管目前全世界有数千家供应商提供神经反馈,但其提供存在争议,因为其有效性超出安慰剂效应尚未得到证实。尽管学者们对神经反馈在机会成本、身体和心理伤害、经济成本以及知情同意方面表达了许多伦理担忧,但迄今为止,这些担忧仍然是理论上的。这项试点研究旨在深入了解神经反馈用户的经验数据是否支持这些问题。方法:对自己和/或孩子使用过脑电图神经反馈的个体进行半结构化电话访谈。结果:大多数受访者(N=36)是女性(75%)、白人(92%),与美国人口相比,他们的社会经济地位更高。在成年用户(n=33)中,大多数(78.8%)在尝试过其他疗法后求助于神经反馈,并对治疗感到满意(81.8%)。大多数人自掏腰包(72.7%)购买神经反馈,认为它物有所值(84.8%)。超过一半(57.6%)的人认为神经反馈是一种科学公认的治疗方法。然而,在这些患者中,78.9%的患者使用神经反馈治疗没有充分科学证据支持的适应症。结论:我们的研究结果没有证实对机会成本、身体和心理伤害以及财务成本的担忧。我们的研究结果部分支持了对局限性理解不足的担忧。这项研究强调了学者们提出的关于使用未经验证的疗法的一些理论问题与使用者的生活体验之间的脱节。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Opportunity Cost or Opportunity Lost: An Empirical Assessment of Ethical Concerns and Attitudes of EEG Neurofeedback 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.

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
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
期刊最新文献
Responding to existential distress at the end of life: Psychedelics and psychedelic experiences and/ as medicine Deep Brain Stimulation for Consciousness Disorders; Technical and Ethical Considerations Neurorights, Mental Privacy, and Mind Reading A Transformative Trip? Experiences of Psychedelic Use The Reliability Challenge to Moral Intuitions
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1