Engaging patient communities in intracranial neuroscience research
Walton, A. E.; Versalovic, E.; Merner, A. R.; Lazaro-Munoz, G.; Bush, A.; Richardson, M.
Show abstract
Patients who participate in intracranial neuroscience research make invaluable contributions to our understanding of the brain, accelerating the development of neurotechnological interventions. Engagement of patients as part of this research presents unique challenges, where study goals can be distant from immediate clinical applications and require specialized domain knowledge. Yet methods for meaningfully integrating patient communities as part of these research efforts is essential, as intracranial neuroscience guides the application of artificial intelligence for understanding and enhancing human cognition. In order to identify what patients consider meaningful research engagement we interviewed individuals who participated in a study during their Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) surgery and attended a group event where they interacted with our research team. Analysis of semi-structured interviews identified four main themes: interest in science and the future of clinical care, contributing to science to improve lives, connecting with others, and accessibility considerations. Based on these insights, we propose strategies for transformational participation of patient communities in intracranial neuroscience research with respect to engagement objectives, communication and scope. This approach offers a foundation for sustaining relationships between scientists and communities rooted in trust and transparency, to ensure that impacts of neurotechnology on human health and cognition are aligned with patient needs as well as desired public values.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Intracranial approach for sub-second monitoring of neurotransmitters during DBS electrode implantation does not increase infection rate 95%
- Protocol for Cerebellar Stimulation for Aphasia Rehabilitation (CeSAR): A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial 93%
- The role of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in pre-clinical spinal cord research: an interview study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring Patient and Staff Experiences of Video Consultations During COVID-19 in an English Outpatient Care Setting: Secondary Data Analysis of Routinely Collected Feedback Data 89%
- Connecting in COVID 19: Neurology tele-follow-up experience 89%
- Developing a psychological support intervention to help injured athletes get Back in the Game 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pallidal neuromodulation of the explore/exploit trade-off in decision-making 90%
- Multicenter preclinical studies as an innovative method to enhance translation: a systematic review of published studies 89%
- Neurofeedback linked suppression of subthalamic beta oscillations speeds up movement initialisation in Parkinsonian Patients 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Legal Frameworks Upholding Deceased Individuals’ Rights and Enabling the Use of Cadavers in Anatomy Education and Research: A Systematic Review 87%
- Factors determining success of the chronically instrumented unanesthetized fetal sheep model of human development: a retrospective cohort study 87%
- Clinical diagnosis of COVID-19: a prompt, feasible, and sensitive diagnostic tool for COVID-19 based on a 1,757-patient cohort (The AndroCoV Clinical Scoring for COVID-19 diagnosis) 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Caregivers’ burden of care during emergency department care transitions among older adults: a mixed methods cohort study 88%
- Deconditioning in people living with dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the Promoting Activity, Independence and Stability in Early Dementia (PrAISED) process evaluation 88%
- Carers using assistive technology in dementia care: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study 87%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.