ArticleHealth, risk & society2021
A qualitative study of key stakeholders' perceived risks and benefits of psychiatric electroceutical interventions.
Article in Health, risk & society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders: a systematic review.Translational psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Public Perceptions of Treating Opioid Use Disorder With Deep Brain Stimulation: Comment Analysis Study.Online journal of public health informatics · 2024Article
- Stakeholders' Ethical Concerns Regarding Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions: Results from a US Nationwide Survey.AJOB empirical bioethics · 2024Article
- Looking through the lens of stigma: Understanding and anticipating concerns about the responsible development and use of psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs).SSM. Mental health · 2023Article
- Vagus nerve stimulation allows to cease maintenance electroconvulsive therapy in treatment-resistant depression: a retrospective monocentric case series.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- The Role of Family Members in Psychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation Trials: More Than Psychosocial Support.Neuroethics · 2023Article
- Views of stakeholders at risk for dementia about deep brain stimulation for cognition.Brain stimulationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
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. Across all stakeholder groups, perceived memory loss was the most frequently mentioned potential risk with ECT. The most discussed benefits across all stakeholder groups were efficacy and quick response. Psychiatrists most often referenced effectiveness when discussing ECT, while patients and the public did so when discussing DBS. Taken as a whole, these data highlight stakeholders' contrasting perspectives on the risks and benefits of electroceuticals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.