Clinician awareness of brain computer interfaces: a Canadian national survey.
Brain computer interface
Cerebral palsy
Neuro-rehabilitation
Neuromuscular disorders
Quality of life
Rehabilitation
Spinal cord injury
Stroke
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 01 2020
06 01 2020
Historique:
received:
10
08
2019
accepted:
13
11
2019
entrez:
8
1
2020
pubmed:
8
1
2020
medline:
18
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Individuals with severe neurological disabilities but preserved cognition, including children, are often precluded from connecting with their environments. Brain computer interfaces (BCI) are a potential solution where advancing technologies create new clinical opportunities. We evaluated clinician awareness as a modifiable barrier to progress and identified eligible populations. We executed a national, population-based, cross-sectional survey of physician specialists caring for persons with severe disability. An evidence- and experience-based survey had three themes: clinician BCI knowledge, eligible populations, and potential impact. A BCI knowledge index was created and scored. Canadian adult and pediatric neurologists, physiatrists and a subset of developmental pediatricians were contacted. Secure, web-based software administered the survey via email with online data collection. Of 922 valid emails (664 neurologists, 253 physiatrists), 137 (15%) responded. One third estimated that ≥10% of their patients had severe neurological disability with cognitive capacity. BCI knowledge scores were low with > 40% identifying as less than "vaguely aware" and only 15% as "somewhat familiar" or better. Knowledge did not differ across specialties. Only 6 physicians (4%) had patients using BCI. Communication and wheelchair control rated highest for potentially improving quality of life. Most (81%) felt BCI had high potential to improve quality of life. Estimates suggested that > 13,000 Canadians (36 M population) might benefit from BCI technologies. Despite high potential and thousands of patients who might benefit, BCI awareness among clinicians caring for disabled persons is poor. Further, functional priorities for BCI applications may differ between medical professionals and potential BCI users, perhaps reflecting that clinicians possess a less accurate understanding of the desires and needs of potential end-users. Improving knowledge and engaging both clinicians and patients could facilitate BCI program development to improve patient outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Individuals with severe neurological disabilities but preserved cognition, including children, are often precluded from connecting with their environments. Brain computer interfaces (BCI) are a potential solution where advancing technologies create new clinical opportunities. We evaluated clinician awareness as a modifiable barrier to progress and identified eligible populations.
METHODS
We executed a national, population-based, cross-sectional survey of physician specialists caring for persons with severe disability. An evidence- and experience-based survey had three themes: clinician BCI knowledge, eligible populations, and potential impact. A BCI knowledge index was created and scored. Canadian adult and pediatric neurologists, physiatrists and a subset of developmental pediatricians were contacted. Secure, web-based software administered the survey via email with online data collection.
RESULTS
Of 922 valid emails (664 neurologists, 253 physiatrists), 137 (15%) responded. One third estimated that ≥10% of their patients had severe neurological disability with cognitive capacity. BCI knowledge scores were low with > 40% identifying as less than "vaguely aware" and only 15% as "somewhat familiar" or better. Knowledge did not differ across specialties. Only 6 physicians (4%) had patients using BCI. Communication and wheelchair control rated highest for potentially improving quality of life. Most (81%) felt BCI had high potential to improve quality of life. Estimates suggested that > 13,000 Canadians (36 M population) might benefit from BCI technologies.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite high potential and thousands of patients who might benefit, BCI awareness among clinicians caring for disabled persons is poor. Further, functional priorities for BCI applications may differ between medical professionals and potential BCI users, perhaps reflecting that clinicians possess a less accurate understanding of the desires and needs of potential end-users. Improving knowledge and engaging both clinicians and patients could facilitate BCI program development to improve patient outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31907010
doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0624-7
pii: 10.1186/s12984-019-0624-7
pmc: PMC6945584
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : 10075523
Pays : Canada
Références
Can J Neurol Sci. 2016 May;43(3):402-9
pubmed: 26787257
Front Syst Neurosci. 2014 Dec 02;8:226
pubmed: 25520632
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Apr 09;15:32
pubmed: 25888346
Fam Med. 2002 Apr;34(4):281-6
pubmed: 12017142
Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon). 2017;4(1-2):60-73
pubmed: 29629393
Fam Pract Res J. 1986 Spring;5(3):145-57
pubmed: 3454525
IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000 Jun;8(2):164-73
pubmed: 10896178
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Mar;96(3 Suppl):S38-45.e1-5
pubmed: 25721546
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007 Jul;4(4):463-74
pubmed: 17605682
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2018 Mar 25;5(5):651-663
pubmed: 29761128
Sensors (Basel). 2017 Oct 07;17(10):
pubmed: 28991172
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Nov;7(11):1032-43
pubmed: 18835541
J Neural Eng. 2016 Apr;13(2):023001
pubmed: 26924826
Respir Care. 2004 Oct;49(10):1181-5
pubmed: 15447800
J Physiol Paris. 2009 Sep-Dec;103(3-5):244-54
pubmed: 19665554
Nature. 2016 Apr 13;533(7602):247-50
pubmed: 27074513
CMAJ. 1997 Jun 15;156(12):1715-23
pubmed: 9220923
Front Neuroeng. 2014 Sep 24;7:38
pubmed: 25309420
J Neurotrauma. 2016 Nov 1;33(21):1958-1968
pubmed: 27080545
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Jan;61(1):5-11
pubmed: 29024794
Front Hum Neurosci. 2019 Feb 04;13:24
pubmed: 30778293
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Mar;96(3 Suppl):S1-7
pubmed: 25721542
Front Neurosci. 2016 Jun 27;10:295
pubmed: 27445666
Neurology. 2014 Oct 28;83(18):1661-4
pubmed: 25349272
Nature. 2012 May 16;485(7398):372-5
pubmed: 22596161
Can J Neurol Sci. 2016 Mar;43(2):227-37
pubmed: 26597946
BMJ Open. 2011 Feb 23;1(1):e000039
pubmed: 22021735
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Mar;96(3 Suppl):S16-26
pubmed: 25721543
CMAJ. 2008 Jul 29;179(3):245-52
pubmed: 18663204
Implement Sci. 2012 May 31;7:50
pubmed: 22651257
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006 Jun;14(2):138-41
pubmed: 16792279
Elife. 2017 Feb 21;6:
pubmed: 28220753
ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:623896
pubmed: 26167530
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010 Apr;18(2):107-16
pubmed: 20083463
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(2):145-60
pubmed: 23760996