Is the Treatment Worse than the Disease?: Key Stakeholders' Views about the Use of Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Depression.

Unlabelled: Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) use electrical or magnetic stimulation to treat psychiatric conditions. For depression therapy, PEIs include both approved treatment modalities, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and experimental neurotechnologies, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive brain implants (ABIs). We present results from a survey-based experiment in which members of four relevant stakeholder groups (psychiatrists, patients with depression, caregivers of adults with depression, and the general public) assessed whether treatment with one of four PEIs (ECT, rTMS, DBS, or ABIs) was better or worse than living with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and then provided a narrative explanation for their assessment.

Explaining key stakeholders' preferences for potential policies governing psychiatric electroceutical intervention use.

In recent years, legislators in many states have proposed laws governing the use of psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs), which use electrical or magnetic stimulation to treat mental disorders. To examine how the PEI views of relevant stakeholder groups (e.g.

Public Perceptions of Treating Opioid Use Disorder With Deep Brain Stimulation: Comment Analysis Study.

Background: The number of opioid-related deaths in the United States has more than tripled over the past 7 years, with a steep increase beginning at the same time as the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an urgent need for novel treatment options that can help alleviate the individual and social effects of refractory opioid use disorder (OUD). Deep brain stimulation (DBS), an intervention that involves implanting electrodes in the brain to deliver electrical impulses, is one potential treatment.

Perceived Barriers to Using Neurostimulation: A National Survey of Psychiatrists, Patients, Caregivers, and the General Public.

Objectives: Neurostimulation interventions often face heightened barriers limiting patient access. The objective of this study is to examine different stakeholders' perceived barriers to using different neurostimulation interventions for depression.

Methods: We administered national surveys with an embedded experiment to 4 nationwide samples of psychiatrists (n = 505), people diagnosed with depression (n = 1050), caregivers of people with depression (n = 1026), and members of the general public (n = 1022).

Looking through the lens of stigma: Understanding and anticipating concerns about the responsible development and use of psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs).

Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) show promise for treating depression, but few studies have examined stakeholders' views on them. Using interview data and survey data that analyzed the views of psychiatrists, patients, caregivers, and the general public, a conceptual map was created to represent stakeholders' views on four PEIs: electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and adaptive brain implants (ABIs). Stigma emerged as a key theme connecting diverse views, revealing that it is a significant factor in the acceptance and usage of PEIs.

The differential effects of psychiatrists' and patients' prior experiences on views about psychiatric electroceutical interventions.

The aim of this study is to examine ways in which prior experiences and familiarity with psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEI) shape psychiatrists' and patients' views about these interventions. We administered a national survey, with an embedded experiment, to psychiatrists (n = 505) and adults diagnosed with depression (n = 1050). We randomly assigned respondents to one of 8 conditions using a full factorial experimental design: 4 PEI modalities [ECT, rTMS, DBS, or adaptive brain implants (ABIs)] by 2 depression severity levels [moderate or severe].

Jumping through the hoops: Barriers and other ethical concerns regarding the use of psychiatric electroceutical interventions.

Stakeholders' perceptions of barriers to and other ethical concerns about using psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs), interventions that use electrical or magnetic stimuli to treat psychiatric conditions like treatment-resistant depression (TRD), may influence the uptake of these interventions. This study examined such perceptions among psychiatrists, patients with depression, and members of the public. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 16 members of each group to examine their views on practical barriers and ethical concerns.

They Affect the Person, but for Better or Worse? Perceptions of Electroceutical Interventions for Depression Among Psychiatrists, Patients, and the Public.

Responding to reports of cases of personality change following deep brain stimulation, neuroethicists have debated the nature and ethical implications of these changes. Recently, this literature has been challenged as being overblown and therefore potentially an impediment to patients accessing needed treatment. We interviewed 16 psychiatrists, 16 patients with depression, and 16 members of the public without depression, all from the Midwestern United States, about their views on how three electroceutical interventions (deep brain stimulation, electroconvulsive therapy, and transcranial magnetic stimulation) used to treat depression might affect the self.

"They Are Invasive in Different Ways.": Stakeholders' Perceptions of the Invasiveness of Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions.

Medical interventions are usually categorized as "invasive" when they involve piercing the skin or inserting an object into the body. Beyond this standard definition, however, there is little discussion of the concept of invasiveness in the medical literature, despite evidence that the term is used in ways that do not reflect the standard definition of medical invasiveness. We interviewed psychiatrists, patients with depression, and members of the public without depression to better understand their views on the invasiveness of several psychiatric electroceutical interventions (treatments that involve electrical or magnetic stimulation of the brain) for the treatment of depression.

Beyond the Cuckoo's Nest: Patient and Public Attitudes about Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions.

Recent research emphasizes the role of psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs), bioelectronic treatments that employ electrical stimulation to affect and modify brain function, to effectively treat psychiatric disorders. We sought to examine attitudes about three PEIs-electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and deep brain stimulation-among patients with depression and members of the general public. As part of a larger study to assess different stakeholders' attitudes about PEIs, we conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with 16 individuals living with depression and 16 non-depressive members of the general public.

A qualitative study of key stakeholders' perceived risks and benefits of psychiatric electroceutical interventions.

Amid a renewed interest in alternatives to psychotherapy and medication to treat depression, there is limited data as to how different stakeholders perceive of the risks and benefits of psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs), including electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and deep brain stimulation (DBS). To address this gap, we conducted 48 semi-structured interviews, including 16 psychiatrists, 16 persons diagnosed with depression, and 16 members of the general public. To provide a basis of comparison, we asked participants to also compare each modality to front-line therapies for depression and to neurosurgical procedures used for non-psychiatric conditions.

Teaching Medical Epistemology within an Evidence-Based Medicine Curriculum.

Epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, value, and use of knowledge, receives little or no formal attention in medical education. Yet the understanding of medical epistemology - focused on what kinds of medical knowledge are relevant to clinical decisions, the strengths and limitations of those different kinds of knowledge, and how they relate to one another and to clinical expertise - represents a critical aspect of medical practice. Understanding the meaning of the term "evidence" is one of the fundamental tasks of medical epistemology.

Online comments about psychiatric neurosurgery and psychopharmacological interventions: Public perceptions and concerns.

The field of biological psychiatry is controversial, with both academics and members of the public questioning the validity and the responsible use of psychiatric technological interventions. The field of neuroethics provides insight into these controversies by examining key themes that characterize specific topics, attitudes, and reasoning tools that people use to evaluate interventions in the brain and mind. This study offers new empirical neuroethical insights into how the public responds to the use and development of psychiatric technological interventions by comparing how the public evaluates pharmacological and neurosurgical psychiatric interventions, in the context of online comments on news media articles about these topics.

Comparison of philosophical concerns between professionals and the public regarding two psychiatric treatments.

Background: Psychiatric interventions are a contested area in medicine, not only because of their history of abuses, but also because their therapeutic goal is to affect emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors that are regarded as pathological. Because psychiatric interventions affect characteristics that seem central to who we are, they raise issues regarding identity, autonomy, and personal responsibility for one's own well-being. Our study addresses two questions: (1) Do the public and academic researchers understand the philosophical stakes of these technologies in the same way? Following from this, (2) to what extent does the specific type of psychiatric technology affect the issues these two groups raise? This study compares how ethical issues regarding neurosurgical and pharmaceutical psychiatric interventions are discussed among the public and in the professional community of academic medicine and bioethics.

Conflicts of interest and industry professional relationships in psychiatric neurosurgery: a comparative literature review.

OBJECTIVE The research required to establish that psychiatric treatments are effective often depends on collaboration between academic clinical researchers and industry. Some of the goals of clinical practice and those of commercial developers of psychiatric therapies overlap, such as developing safe and effective treatments. However, there might also be incompatible goals; physicians aim to provide the best care they can to their patients, whereas the medical industry ultimately aims to develop therapies that are commercially successful.

An Epistemic Argument for Research-Practice Integration in Medicine.

Arguments in favor of greater research-practice integration in medicine have tended to be ethical, political, or pragmatic. There are good epistemic reasons to pursue greater integration, and it is important to think through these reasons in order to avoid inadvertently designing new systems in ways that replicate the epistemic elitism common within current systems. Meaningful transformation within health care is possible with close attention to all reasons in favor of greater research-practice integration, including epistemic reasons.

Reasoning, evidence, and clinical decision-making: The great debate moves forward.

When the editorial to the first philosophy thematic edition of this journal was published in 2010, critical questioning of underlying assumptions, regarding such crucial issues as clinical decision making, practical reasoning, and the nature of evidence in health care, was still derided by some prominent contributors to the literature on medical practice. Things have changed dramatically. Far from being derided or dismissed as a distraction from practical concerns, the discussion of such fundamental questions, and their implications for matters of practical import, is currently the preoccupation of some of the most influential and insightful contributors to the on-going evidence-based medicine debate.

Theory, experience and practice.

Despite its potential hazards, the activity of questioning theoretical frameworks and proposing solutions is necessary if progress is even to be possible. Intellectual history has by no means ended, so we cannot expect to have all the answers, and from time to time the activity of critical questioning will be frustrating. But intellectual progress requires us to continue the process of asking fundamental questions.

Diseases, patients and the epistemology of practice: mapping the borders of health, medicine and care.

Last year saw the 20th anniversary edition of JECP, and in the introduction to the philosophy section of that landmark edition, we posed the question: apart from ethics, what is the role of philosophy 'at the bedside'? The purpose of this question was not to downplay the significance of ethics to clinical practice. Rather, we raised it as part of a broader argument to the effect that ethical questions - about what we should do in any given situation - are embedded within whole understandings of the situation, inseparable from our beliefs about what is the case (metaphysics), what it is that we feel we can claim to know (epistemology), as well as the meaning we ascribe to different aspects of the situation or to our perception of it. Philosophy concerns fundamental questions: it is a discipline requiring us to examine the underlying assumptions we bring with us to our thinking about practical problems.

The (dis)unity of nursing science.

This paper looks at the implications of contemporary work in philosophy of science for nursing science. Early work on the nature of theories in nursing was strongly influenced by logical empiricism, and this influence remains even long after nurse scholars have come to reject logical empiricism as an adequate philosophy of science. Combined with the need to establish nursing as an autonomous profession, nursing theory's use of logical empiricism has led to serious conceptual problems.