ArticleNeuroethics2023
The Role of Family Members in Psychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation Trials: More Than Psychosocial Support.
Article in Neuroethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond Innovation: The Burdens and Harms of Maintenance in Deep Brain Stimulation.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Recommendations on post-trial responsibility in implantable neural device research: a multidisciplinary consensus study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Qualitative dyadic analysis in care partnership research: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- "In the spectrum of people who are healthy": Views of individuals at risk of dementia on using neurotechnology for cognitive enhancement.Neuroethics · 2024Article
- Family members' experiences of everyday caregiving for a family member living with Parkinson's disease: a qualitative thematic analysis study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Caregivers in implantable brain-computer interface research: a scoping review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Family members can provide crucial support to individuals participating in clinical trials. In research on the "newest frontier" of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS)-the use of DBS for psychiatric conditions-family member support is frequently listed as a criterion for trial enrollment. Despite the significance of family members, qualitative ethics research on DBS for psychiatric conditions has focused almost exclusively on the perspectives and experiences of DBS recipients. This qualitative study is one of the first to include both DBS recipients and their family members as interview participants. Using dyadic thematic analysis-an approach that takes both the individuals and the relationship as units of analyses-this study analyzes the complex ways in which family relationships can affect DBS trial participation, and how DBS trial participation in turn influences family relationships. Based on these findings, we propose ways to improve study designs to better take family relationships into account, and better support family members in taking on the complex, essential roles that they play in DBS trials for psychiatric conditions. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12152-023-09520-7.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.