Race-Ethnicity, Rurality, and Age in Prospective Preferences and Concerns Regarding Closed-Loop Implanted Neural Devices

J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2024 Aug 22:appineuropsych20230190. doi: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.20230190. Online ahead of print.

Abstract

Objective: Responsive and human-centered neurotechnology development requires attention to public perceptions, particularly among groups underserved by existing treatments.

Methods: The authors conducted a preregistered nationally representative survey (https://osf.io/ej9h2) using the NORC at the University of Chicago AmeriSpeak panel. One vignette compared an implanted neural device with surgical resection in a scenario involving epilepsy, and another compared an implanted neural device with medications in a scenario involving mood disorders. The survey also contained questions about respondents' confidence that a device would be available if needed and confidence that enough research has been conducted among people like themselves. Responses were entered into nested survey-weighted logistic regression models, including a base demographic model (to test the overall effect of demographic factors) and an adjusted model that also included socioeconomic, religious and political, and health care access predictors.

Results: A total of 1,047 adults responded to the survey, which oversampled Black non-Hispanic (N=214), Hispanic (N=210), and rural (N=219) Americans. In the base demographic model, older Americans were more likely to prefer an implanted device in the two scenarios, and non-Hispanic Black Americans were less likely than non-Hispanic White Americans to prefer a device; rural Americans were less confident than urban or suburban Americans in having access, and non-Hispanic Black and rural Americans were less confident that enough research has been conducted among people like themselves. In adjusted models, income was a key mediator, partially explaining the effect of age and the contrast between Black and White non-Hispanic respondents on preferences for a device in the epilepsy scenario and fully explaining the effect of rurality on confidence in access.

Conclusions: Demographic differences in prospective preferences and concerns highlight the importance of including members of underserved communities in neurotechnology development.

Keywords: Epilepsy; Ethics; Implanted Neural Devices; Neurotechnology; Statistics; Underserved Communities.