Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35584563›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry research2022

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

Laura Y Cabrera, Maryssa M C Gilbert, Eric D Achtyes, Aaron M McCright, Robyn Bluhm

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Electroconvulsive therapy and autobiographical memory.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026
    Article
  6. Contemporary Ethical Considerations in Psychiatric Neurosurgery.Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Defining a Neurostimulation-Focused Subspecialty: Perspectives Inspired by a Debate at the 2023 Clinical TMS Society Annual Meeting.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Advances in Deep Brain Stimulation: From Mechanisms to Applications.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Laura Y CabreraCenter for Neural Engineering, Department of Science and Mechanics and Rock Ethics Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, W-316 Millennium Science Complex, PA 16802, United States. Electronic address: lcabrera@psu.edu.
Maryssa M C GilbertCollege of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
Eric D AchtyesDivision of Psychiatry & Behavioral Medicine, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI, United States; Pine Rest Christian Mental Health Services, Grand Rapids, MI, United States.
Aaron M McCrightDepartment of Sociology, College of Social Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
Robyn BluhmDepartment of Philosophy, College of Arts and Letters, and Lyman Briggs College, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
Michigan State University · USPennsylvania State University · USPine Rest Christian Mental Health Services · US

Funding

Is the Treatment Perceived to be Worse than the Disease?: Ethical Concerns and Attitudes towards Psychiatric Electroceutical InterventionsRF1MH117802 · NIMH · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI CABRERA TRUJILLO, LAURA YENISA · 2018 to 2018
$1.3M
NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH117802
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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. We used qualitative content analysis to identify relevant themes, and compared findings across stakeholder groups. Access limitations to the interventions, including cost and availability of the interventions, cut across all PEIs-including those that are still experimental, and were raised by all groups. Most participants across all groups raised concerns about informed consent, in terms of receiving adequate, appropriate, and understandable information. Our results suggest that these three stakeholder groups perceive similar structural and attitudinal barriers to, and have similar ethical concerns about, using PEIs for TRD. These results identify key issues that must be addressed for the full potential of PEIs to be realized. Future research with larger samples will help to better understand how to address these barriers to treatment for individuals with TRD.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersPsychiatryHumansInformed ConsentMoralsQualitative ResearchBarriersDepressionEthical issuesPsychiatric electroceutical interventions

Identifiers

PMID35584563
PMCPMC10516532
OpenAlexW4280564538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.