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

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Journal of Ect Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-24 DOI:10.1097/YCT.0000000000000990
Marissa K Cortright, Robyn Bluhm, Eric D Achtyes, Aaron M McCright, Laura Y Cabrera
{"title":"Perceived Barriers to Using Neurostimulation: A National Survey of Psychiatrists, Patients, Caregivers, and the General Public.","authors":"Marissa K Cortright, Robyn Bluhm, Eric D Achtyes, Aaron M McCright, Laura Y Cabrera","doi":"10.1097/YCT.0000000000000990","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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). We randomly assigned respondents to 1 of 8 conditions using a full factorial experimental design: 4 neurostimulation modalities (electroconvulsive therapy [ECT], repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS], deep brain stimulation [DBS], or adaptive brain implants [ABIs]) by 2 depression severity levels (moderate or severe). We asked participants to rank from a list what they perceived as the top 3 barriers to using their assigned intervention. We analyzed the data with analysis of variance and logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nonclinicians most frequently reported \"limited evidence of the treatment's effectiveness\" and \"lack of understanding of intervention\" as their top 2 most important practical barriers to using ECT and TMS, respectively. Compared with nonclinicians, psychiatrists were more likely to identify \"stigma about treatment\" for ECT and \"lack of insurance coverage\" for TMS as the most important barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, psychiatrists' perceptions of the most important barriers to using neurostimulation interventions were significantly different than those of nonclinicians. Perceived barriers were significantly different for implantable DBS and ABI) versus nonimplantable (rTMS and ECT) neurostimulation interventions. Better understanding of how these barriers vary by neurostimulation and stakeholder group could help us address structural and attitudinal barriers to effective use of these interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":54844,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ect","volume":" ","pages":"111-117"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11136602/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ect","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/YCT.0000000000000990","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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). We randomly assigned respondents to 1 of 8 conditions using a full factorial experimental design: 4 neurostimulation modalities (electroconvulsive therapy [ECT], repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS], deep brain stimulation [DBS], or adaptive brain implants [ABIs]) by 2 depression severity levels (moderate or severe). We asked participants to rank from a list what they perceived as the top 3 barriers to using their assigned intervention. We analyzed the data with analysis of variance and logistic regression.

Results: Nonclinicians most frequently reported "limited evidence of the treatment's effectiveness" and "lack of understanding of intervention" as their top 2 most important practical barriers to using ECT and TMS, respectively. Compared with nonclinicians, psychiatrists were more likely to identify "stigma about treatment" for ECT and "lack of insurance coverage" for TMS as the most important barriers.

Conclusions: Overall, psychiatrists' perceptions of the most important barriers to using neurostimulation interventions were significantly different than those of nonclinicians. Perceived barriers were significantly different for implantable DBS and ABI) versus nonimplantable (rTMS and ECT) neurostimulation interventions. Better understanding of how these barriers vary by neurostimulation and stakeholder group could help us address structural and attitudinal barriers to effective use of these interventions.

使用神经刺激的认知障碍:一项针对精神病医生、患者、护理人员和公众的全国调查。
目的:神经刺激干预往往面临着更多的障碍,限制了患者的使用。本研究旨在探讨不同利益相关者在使用不同神经刺激干预治疗抑郁症时所遇到的障碍:我们在全国范围内对精神科医生(505 人)、抑郁症患者(1050 人)、抑郁症患者的照顾者(1026 人)和普通公众(1022 人)等 4 个样本进行了带有嵌入式实验的调查。我们采用全因子实验设计,将受访者随机分配到 8 种条件中的一种:4 种神经刺激模式(电休克疗法 [ECT]、重复经颅磁刺激 [rTMS]、深部脑刺激 [DBS] 或自适应脑植入 [ABIs]),按 2 种抑郁症严重程度(中度或重度)进行分配。我们要求参与者从一份清单中列出他们认为使用指定干预措施的三大障碍。我们通过方差分析和逻辑回归对数据进行了分析:结果:非临床医生最常报告的两大实际障碍分别是 "治疗效果证据有限 "和 "对干预缺乏了解"。与非临床医生相比,精神科医生更倾向于将 ECT 的 "治疗耻辱感 "和 TMS 的 "缺乏保险覆盖 "视为最重要的障碍:总体而言,精神科医生对使用神经刺激干预最主要障碍的看法与非临床医生有显著不同。对植入式 DBS 和 ABI)与非植入式(经颅磁刺激和电痉挛疗法)神经刺激干预措施的障碍认知明显不同。更好地了解这些障碍在神经刺激和利益相关者群体中的差异,有助于我们解决有效使用这些干预措施的结构性和态度性障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Ect
Journal of Ect 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
154
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of ECT covers all aspects of contemporary electroconvulsive therapy, reporting on major clinical and research developments worldwide. Leading clinicians and researchers examine the effects of induced seizures on behavior and on organ systems; review important research results on the mode of induction, occurrence, and propagation of seizures; and explore the difficult sociological, ethical, and legal issues concerning the use of ECT.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信