Stakeholders' Ethical Concerns Regarding Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions: Results from a US Nationwide Survey.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) use electrical or magnetic stimulation to treat mental disorders and may raise different ethical concerns than other therapies such as medications or talk therapy. Yet little is known about stakeholders' perceptions of, and ethical concerns related to, these interventions. We aimed to better understand the ethical concerns of a variety of stakeholder groups (patients with depression, caregivers of patients, members of the public, and psychiatrists) regarding four PEIs: electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and adaptive brain implants (ABI). METHODS: We conducted a national survey of these four stakeholder groups, using an embedded video vignette experiment depicting a patient with treatment-resistant depression and her psychiatrist discussing the possibility of treatment with one of the four PEIs. RESULTS: Participants' ethical concerns varied by stakeholder group, by PEI, and by the interaction of the two. The three non-clinician groups tended to have similar ethical concerns, but to differ from psychiatrists. Similar concerns were raised with regard to the two implantable technologies, DBS and ABI. Overall, there was relatively little concern about the involuntary use of PEIs, though some expressed concern about the adequacy of information provided during the consent process. There was also significant concern that patients may not receive helpful therapies. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first national survey that includes multiple stakeholder groups and multiple PEI modalities. A better understanding of the ethical concerns of stakeholders can help to shape clinical practice and health care policy regarding PEIs.

Views about neuromodulation interventions for depression by stakeholder group, treatment modality, and depression severity.

BACKGROUND: The past few decades have seen the emergence both of new neuromodulation treatment protocols and novel applications of standard neuromodulation interventions in psychiatry. Yet little is known about different stakeholders' views about these interventions. METHODS: We administered an online survey with an embedded video vignette experiment to four national samples: the general public (N = 1022), caregivers for people with depression (N = 1026), patients living with depression (N = 1050), and board-certified psychiatrists (N = 505). We randomly assigned subjects to one of eight conditions in our full factorial design: four neuromodulation interventions [electroconvulsive therapy, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation, or adaptive brain implants] by two depression severity levels [moderate or severe]. In this paper we present results from ANOVA and linear regression models explaining how views about these four neuromodulation interventions-as measured in five attitudinal scales (general affect, perceived influence on self, perceived benefit, perceived risk, and perceived invasiveness)-vary by (1) intervention, (2) depression severity, and/or (3) stakeholder group. RESULTS: Our results provide evidence that psychiatrists views differ significantly in important ways from other stakeholder groups. Type of intervention also shaped participants' attitudes, including perceptions of invasiveness, effectiveness, and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Given the differing affective valence among stakeholders and the differences found by modality and stakeholder groups across the different scales, future targeted educational initiatives could be developed to help address key misunderstandings and misinformed perceptions.

The influence of prior awareness on views about psychiatric electroceutical interventions among non-clinician stakeholders.

Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) are emerging interventions in the treatment of depression and other mood disorders. The uptake of PEIs is strongly influenced by public, caregiver, and patient views. This study examines the influence of prior awareness and of trust in the medico-scientific establishment with respect to non-clinicians' views on PEI among a cohort of U.S. respondents. About 3098 U.S. caregivers, patients, and members of the general public completed an online survey with an embedded experiment to evaluate PEI views by stakeholder, modality, and disease severity. ANOVA statistical tests and logistic regression models were used to identify significant differences between groups and moderating factors. Overall, respondents had greater awareness of antidepressant medication (73-84%) and psychotherapy (68-76%) than of any PEI, and ECT garnered the most prior awareness (29-40%) within each group. Non-clinical respondents most often used websites or social media as information sources, and the least trusted sources included those with notable financial interests. Considering the low awareness level among non-clinicians, the implementation of programs to target and advance awareness levels about the use of PEIs in depression among this population may contribute to reducing negative views around these interventions. Fostering trust in the medico-scientific establishment may also increase public support for PEIs as well as uptake of these treatment modalities.

Last Resort Interventions?: A Qualitative Study of Psychiatrists' Experience with and Views on Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions.

Psychiatrists play an important role in providing access to psychiatric electrical interventions (PEIs) such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). As such, their views on these procedures likely influence whether they refer or provide these types of treatments for their clinically depressed patients. Despite this, scholars have too infrequently examined psychiatrists' views about specific PEIs and have not yet examined their views across different PEIs. To gain insight into psychiatrists' views about PEIs, we conducted a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with 16 psychiatrists in Michigan. The majority of psychiatrists had a positive attitude towards PEIs in general. One-third reported cautionary attitudes towards PEIs; they did not reject the interventions but were skeptical of their effectiveness or felt they needed further development. The majority of psychiatrists consider ECT and TMS to be viable therapies that they would discuss with their patients after several failed medication trials. There was a lack of knowledge about surgical PEIs, such as deep brain stimulation. This study provides insights into how psychiatrists perceive PEIs. While broadly positive attitudes exist, this research highlights certain challenges, particularly lack of knowledge and ambiguity about the use of PEIs.