Caregiver reactions to neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness in patients with severe brain injury: a qualitative interview study.
Caregiver
Ethics
Minimally conscious state
Neuroimaging
Research ethics
Traumatic brain injury
Vegetative state
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 07 2021
28 07 2021
Historique:
received:
22
04
2021
accepted:
16
07
2021
entrez:
29
7
2021
pubmed:
30
7
2021
medline:
7
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Severe brain injury is a leading cause of death and disability. Diagnosis and prognostication are difficult, and errors occur often. Novel neuroimaging methods can improve diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, especially in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDoC). Yet it is currently unknown how family caregivers understand this information, raising ethical concerns that disclosure of neuroimaging results could result in therapeutic misconception or false hope. To examine these ethical concerns, we conducted semi-structured interviews with caregivers of patients with PDoC who were enrolled in a concurrent neuroimaging research program designed to detect covert consciousness following severe brain injury. Caregivers held surrogate decision-making status for a patient. Interviews were conducted at two time points for each caregiver. The first interview occurred before the disclosure of neuroimaging results. The second occurred after disclosure. Descriptive analysis was applied to the data of four interview topics: (1) expectations for neuroimaging; (2) reactions to evidence of preserved cognition; (3) reactions to null results; and (4) understanding of the results and study. Twelve caregivers participated in the study; two caregivers shared surrogate decision-making status for one patient with PDoC. Twenty-one interviews were completed; one caregiver declined to participate in the post-disclosure interview. Three patients with PDoC associated with the study displayed evidence of covert consciousness. Overall, caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results. Caregivers who received results of covert consciousness were generally pleased. However, there was some variation in expectations and reactions to these data and null results. This study, for the first time, reveals caregiver expectations for and reactions to neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness in patients with PDoC. Caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results, casting doubt on speculative ethical concerns regarding therapeutic misconception and false hope. However, disclosure of neuroimaging result could be improved. Pre-disclosure consultations might assist professionals in shaping caregiver expectations. Standardization of disclosure might also improve comprehension of the results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Severe brain injury is a leading cause of death and disability. Diagnosis and prognostication are difficult, and errors occur often. Novel neuroimaging methods can improve diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, especially in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDoC). Yet it is currently unknown how family caregivers understand this information, raising ethical concerns that disclosure of neuroimaging results could result in therapeutic misconception or false hope.
METHODS
To examine these ethical concerns, we conducted semi-structured interviews with caregivers of patients with PDoC who were enrolled in a concurrent neuroimaging research program designed to detect covert consciousness following severe brain injury. Caregivers held surrogate decision-making status for a patient. Interviews were conducted at two time points for each caregiver. The first interview occurred before the disclosure of neuroimaging results. The second occurred after disclosure. Descriptive analysis was applied to the data of four interview topics: (1) expectations for neuroimaging; (2) reactions to evidence of preserved cognition; (3) reactions to null results; and (4) understanding of the results and study.
RESULTS
Twelve caregivers participated in the study; two caregivers shared surrogate decision-making status for one patient with PDoC. Twenty-one interviews were completed; one caregiver declined to participate in the post-disclosure interview. Three patients with PDoC associated with the study displayed evidence of covert consciousness. Overall, caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results. Caregivers who received results of covert consciousness were generally pleased. However, there was some variation in expectations and reactions to these data and null results.
CONCLUSION
This study, for the first time, reveals caregiver expectations for and reactions to neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness in patients with PDoC. Caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results, casting doubt on speculative ethical concerns regarding therapeutic misconception and false hope. However, disclosure of neuroimaging result could be improved. Pre-disclosure consultations might assist professionals in shaping caregiver expectations. Standardization of disclosure might also improve comprehension of the results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34320966
doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00674-8
pii: 10.1186/s12910-021-00674-8
pmc: PMC8320067
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : MOP-133705
Pays : Canada
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R21 AG069805
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 27;380(26):2497-2505
pubmed: 31242361
Emerg Top Life Sci. 2019 Nov 27;3(6):707-711
pubmed: 32915226
Bioethics. 2020 Mar;34(3):295-305
pubmed: 31577856
Brain Inj. 2021 Jan 18;35(2):200-208
pubmed: 33385307
Lancet. 2014 Aug 9;384(9942):514-22
pubmed: 24746174
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Sep;99(9):1699-1709
pubmed: 30098791
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 May 20;15:41
pubmed: 24885720
Nat Rev Neurol. 2021 Mar;17(3):135-156
pubmed: 33318675
J Med Ethics. 2015 Jul;41(7):534-8
pubmed: 25079068
Eur J Neurol. 2020 May;27(5):741-756
pubmed: 32090418
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Dec;85(12):2020-9
pubmed: 15605342
Neuroimage Clin. 2016 Aug 04;12:359-71
pubmed: 27595064
Am J Bioeth. 2008 Sep;8(9):3-12
pubmed: 18853371
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Sep 30;111(39):14277-82
pubmed: 25225384
Lancet. 1972 Apr 1;1(7753):734-7
pubmed: 4111204
Clin Rehabil. 2014 Jul;28(7):627-31
pubmed: 24920582
Sociol Health Illn. 2013 Sep;35(7):1095-112
pubmed: 23278317
Brain Inj. 2021 Jan 5;35(1):8-14
pubmed: 33382636
N Engl J Med. 1994 May 26;330(21):1499-508
pubmed: 7818633
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Nov;14(11):801-9
pubmed: 24088810
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2015 May 12;7(1):26
pubmed: 25969699
Clin Neurophysiol. 2020 Nov;131(11):2736-2765
pubmed: 32917521
Neurology. 2002 Feb 12;58(3):349-53
pubmed: 11839831
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Jun;21(3):374-9
pubmed: 24995490
JAMA Neurol. 2013 Oct;70(10):1235-41
pubmed: 23939634
N Engl J Med. 2010 Feb 18;362(7):579-89
pubmed: 20130250
Brain. 2009 Sep;132(Pt 9):2541-52
pubmed: 19710182
Ann Neurol. 2016 Sep;80(3):412-23
pubmed: 27422169
Curr Biol. 2018 Dec 3;28(23):R1345-R1348
pubmed: 30513331
JAMA Neurol. 2020 May 1;77(5):541-542
pubmed: 32176251
Brain Inj. 2020 Feb 23;34(3):390-398
pubmed: 31880960
Science. 2006 Sep 8;313(5792):1402
pubmed: 16959998