解释主要利益相关者对精神科电疗干预使用潜在政策的偏好。

Aaron M. McCright, Eric D. Achtyes, Robyn Bluhm, Laura Y. Cabrera
{"title":"解释主要利益相关者对精神科电疗干预使用潜在政策的偏好。","authors":"Aaron M. McCright, Eric D. Achtyes, Robyn Bluhm, Laura Y. Cabrera","doi":"10.1038/s44184-024-00096-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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., psychiatrists, patients, caregivers, and general public) relate to preferences for proposed policies governing PEI use, we analyze data from a survey on using one of four PEIs to treat major depressive disorder administered to national samples of the stakeholder groups above. We find that the three non-clinician groups’ similar PEI policy preferences differ significantly from those of psychiatrists—with the greatest divide on policies governing the use of electroconvulsive therapy. This divide between psychiatrists’ and non-clinicians’ PEI policy preferences was greater with access-reducing than with access-expanding policies. We advise policymakers to consider such variation in the preferred availability of PEIs across modalities and stakeholder groups when crafting legislation on these interventions.","PeriodicalId":74321,"journal":{"name":"Npj mental health research","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-024-00096-5.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining key stakeholders’ preferences for potential policies governing psychiatric electroceutical intervention use\",\"authors\":\"Aaron M. McCright, Eric D. Achtyes, Robyn Bluhm, Laura Y. Cabrera\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s44184-024-00096-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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., psychiatrists, patients, caregivers, and general public) relate to preferences for proposed policies governing PEI use, we analyze data from a survey on using one of four PEIs to treat major depressive disorder administered to national samples of the stakeholder groups above. We find that the three non-clinician groups’ similar PEI policy preferences differ significantly from those of psychiatrists—with the greatest divide on policies governing the use of electroconvulsive therapy. This divide between psychiatrists’ and non-clinicians’ PEI policy preferences was greater with access-reducing than with access-expanding policies. We advise policymakers to consider such variation in the preferred availability of PEIs across modalities and stakeholder groups when crafting legislation on these interventions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Npj mental health research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-024-00096-5.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Npj mental health research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-024-00096-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Npj mental health research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-024-00096-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,许多州的立法者都提议制定法律来规范精神科电疗干预(PEI)的使用,这种干预使用电刺激或磁刺激来治疗精神障碍。为了研究相关利益群体(如精神科医生、患者、护理人员和普通大众)对 PEI 的看法与对拟议的 PEI 使用政策的偏好之间的关系,我们分析了对上述利益群体的全国样本进行的关于使用四种 PEI 之一治疗重度抑郁症的调查数据。我们发现,三个非临床医生群体对类似 PEI 政策的偏好与精神科医生的偏好存在很大差异--其中在使用电休克疗法的政策方面分歧最大。精神科医生和非临床医生在 PEI 政策偏好上的这种分歧在减少使用机会的政策上比在扩大使用机会的政策上更大。我们建议政策制定者在制定有关这些干预措施的法律时,考虑到不同模式和利益相关者群体对 PEI 可及性偏好的这种差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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., psychiatrists, patients, caregivers, and general public) relate to preferences for proposed policies governing PEI use, we analyze data from a survey on using one of four PEIs to treat major depressive disorder administered to national samples of the stakeholder groups above. We find that the three non-clinician groups’ similar PEI policy preferences differ significantly from those of psychiatrists—with the greatest divide on policies governing the use of electroconvulsive therapy. This divide between psychiatrists’ and non-clinicians’ PEI policy preferences was greater with access-reducing than with access-expanding policies. We advise policymakers to consider such variation in the preferred availability of PEIs across modalities and stakeholder groups when crafting legislation on these interventions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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