Tsungmey Tenzin, Kim Jane Paik, Dunn Laura B, Ryan Katie, Lane-McKinley Kyle, Roberts Laura Weiss
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, School of Medicine, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, USA, 94305-5717.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, School of Medicine, 401 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, USA, 94305-5717.
J Psychiatr Res. 2020 Mar;122:9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.12.010. Epub 2019 Dec 18.
Psychiatric researchers grapple with concerns that individuals with mental illness may be less likely to appreciate risks of research participation, particularly compared to people not suffering from mental illness. Therefore, empirical studies that directly compare the perspectives of such individuals are needed. In addition, it is important to evaluate perspectives regarding varied types of research protocols, particularly as innovative psychiatric research protocols emerge. In this pilot study, respondents with a mood disorder (n = 25) as well as respondents without a mood disorder (n = 55) were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform. These respondents were surveyed regarding four psychiatric research projects (i.e., experimental medication [pill form]; non-invasive magnetic brain stimulation; experimental medication [intravenous infusion]; and implantation of a device in the brain). Regardless of health status, respondents rated the four research protocols as somewhat to highly risky. The brain-device implant protocol was seen as the most risky, while the magnetic brain stimulation project was viewed as "somewhat risky". Respondents, on average and regardless of health status, rated their willingness at or below "somewhat willing." Respondents were least willing to participate in the brain-device implant protocol, whereas they were "somewhat willing" to participate in the magnetic brain stimulation protocol. Trust in medical research was negatively associated with perceived risk of research protocols. Perceived risk was negatively associated with willingness to participate, even when adjusting for potential confounders, suggesting that attunement to risk crosses diagnostic, gender, and ethnic categories, and is more salient to research decision-making than trust in medical research and dispositional optimism. The findings of this study may offer reassurance about the underlying decision-making processes of individuals considering participation in innovative neuroscience studies.
患有精神疾病的个体可能不太能够意识到参与研究的风险，尤其是与未患精神疾病的人相比。因此，需要进行直接比较此类个体观点的实证研究。此外，评估关于不同类型研究方案的观点很重要，特别是随着创新性精神病学研究方案的出现。在这项试点研究中，使用亚马逊的Mechanical Turk（MTurk）平台招募了患有情绪障碍的受访者（n = 25）以及没有情绪障碍的受访者（n = 55）。就四个精神病学研究项目（即实验性药物[丸剂形式]；非侵入性磁脑刺激；实验性药物[静脉输注]；以及在大脑中植入装置）对这些受访者进行了调查。无论健康状况如何，受访者都将这四个研究方案评为有点高风险到非常高风险。大脑装置植入方案被视为风险最高，而磁脑刺激项目被视为“有点风险”。受访者平均而言，无论健康状况如何，将他们的意愿评为“有点愿意”或更低。受访者最不愿意参与大脑装置植入方案，而他们“有点愿意”参与磁脑刺激方案。对医学研究的信任与对研究方案的感知风险呈负相关。感知风险与参与意愿呈负相关，即使在调整潜在混杂因素后也是如此，这表明对风险的敏感度跨越诊断、性别和种族类别，并且在研究决策中比在医学研究中的信任和性格乐观更突出。这项研究的结果可能会让考虑参与创新性神经科学研究的个体对其潜在的决策过程放心。
