Views about neuromodulation interventions for depression by stakeholder group, treatment modality, and depression severity

Four dimensions of individualization in brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders: context, target, dose, and timing

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) technologies, including transcranial electrical (tES) and magnetic (TMS) stimulation, have emerged as promising interventions for various psychiatric disorders. FDA-approved TMS protocols in depression, OCD and nicotine use disorder provide a meaningful improvement. Treatment efficacy however remains inconsistent across individuals, and one relevant reason is intervention effect variability based on individual factors. There is a growing effort to develop individualized interventions, reinforced recently by FDA approval of a new TMS protocol that includes individualized fMRI-based targeting along with other modifications with higher reported effect size than previous "one size fits all" protocols. This paper discusses the dimensions for individualizing tES/TMS protocols to enhance therapeutic efficacy. We propose a multifaceted approach to personalizing NIBS, considering four levels: (1) context, (2) target, (3) dose, and (4) timing. By addressing inter- and intra-individual variability, we highlight a path toward precision medicine using individualized Brain Stimulation to treat psychiatric diseases. Despite challenges and limitations, this approach encourages broader and more systematic adoption of personalized Brain Stimulation techniques to improve clinical outcomes.

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.

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

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. Overall, the prevalence of many narrative themes differed substantially by stakeholder group-with psychiatrists typically offering different reasons for their assessment than non-clinicians-but much less so by PEI modality. A large majority of all participants viewed their assigned PEI as better than living with TRD, with their reasons being a mix of positive views about the treatment and negative views about TRD. The minority of all participants who viewed their assigned PEI as worse than living with TRD tended to express negative affect toward it as well as emphasize its riskiness, negative side effects, and, to a lesser extent, its invasiveness. The richness of these narrative explanations enabled us to put in context and add depth to key patterns seen in recent survey-based research on PEIs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12152-024-09573-2.

Public Perceptions of Neurotechnologies Used to Target Mood, Memory, and Motor Symptoms

Background

Advances in the development of neurotechnologies have the potential to revolutionize treatment of brain-based conditions. However, a critical concern revolves around the willingness of the public to embrace these technologies, especially considering the tumultuous histories of certain neurosurgical interventions. Therefore, examining public attitudes is paramount to uncovering potential barriers to adoption ensuring ethically sound innovation.

Methods

In the present study, we investigate public attitudes towards the use of four neurotechnologies (within-subjects conditions): deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), pills, and MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) as potential treatments to a person experiencing either mood, memory, or motor symptoms (between-subjects conditions). US-based participants (N=1052; stratified to be nationally representative based on sex, race, age) were asked about their perceptions of risk, benefit, invasiveness, acceptability, perceived change to the person, and personal interest in using these neurotechnologies for symptom alleviation.

Results

Descriptive results indicate variability between technologies that the U.S. public is willing to consider if experiencing severe mood, memory, or motor symptoms. The main effect of neurotechnology revealed DBS was viewed as the most invasive and risky treatment and was perceived to lead to the greatest change to who someone is as a person. DBS was also viewed as least likely to be personally used and least acceptable for use by others. When examining the main effects of symptomatology, we found that all forms of neuromodulation were perceived as significantly more beneficial, acceptable, and likely to be used by participants for motor symptoms, followed by memory symptoms, and lastly mood symptoms. Neuromodulation (averaging across neurotechnologies) was perceived as significantly riskier, more invasive, and leading to a greater change to person for mood versus motor symptoms; however, memory and motor symptoms were perceived similarly with respect to risk, invasiveness, and change to person.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the public views neuromodulatory approaches that require surgery (i.e., DBS and MRgFUS) as riskier, more invasive, and less acceptable than those that do not. Further, findings suggest individuals may be more reluctant to alter or treat psychological symptoms with neuromodulation compared to physical symptoms.

Opinion, Use and Knowledge About Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Spain: A National Survey of Mental Health Professionals

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive method of neuromodulation with heterogeneous usage between countries, which may be potentially influenced by healthcare professionals' opinions. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, acceptability, and attitudes of mental health professionals in Spain towards TMS. A cross-sectional multicentric study was conducted using an online survey, with 219 participants including psychiatrists, psychologists, and residents. Nearly 100% of participants correctly answered theoretical aspects related to the rationale and indications of TMS. Although only 55% considered TMS effective, 80% would refer patients if TMS were available at their workplace, and 74% would undergo TMS if experiencing depression. 85% believed neuromodulation training should be increased in residency, and 73% demanded TMS inclusion in public hospitals. Teaching staff and psychologists defined TMS as a last resort (p = 0.03 and 0.045). Both disagreed on its ease of use (p < 0.001) and patient referral (p = 0.01), considering an impact on the therapeutic bond (p = 0.029). Previous TMS training, clinical experience, or availability of TMS at the workplace, were associated with better knowledge, a higher perception of efficacy and utility in treating resistant patients (all p < 0.05). In conclusion, surveyed mental health professionals in Spain demonstrated good knowledge of the technique and positive opinions regarding its utility. Findings emphasized limited clinical experience of the sample, a call for training programs, and the demand for the inclusion of TMS in the portfolio of Spanish public hospitals.

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]. We analyzed the survey data with ANOVA and OLS linear regression models. Patients having experience with any PEI reported more positive affect toward, but also greater perceived risk from, their assigned PEI than did patients with no such experience. Psychiatrists who referred or administered any PEI reported more positive affect toward and greater perceived influence on self and perceived benefit from their assigned PEI than did psychiatrists with no such familiarity. Limitations of our study include that our participants were randomly assigned to a PEI, not necessarily to the one they had experience with. Moreover, our study did not directly ask about the kind of experiences participants had with a given PEI. Overall, our survey data shows that greater experience with PEIs elicits more positive affect in both stakeholder groups. Beyond this, prior PEI experience shapes attitudes towards these interventions in complex ways. Further research linking different types of experience with a given PEI would help better understand factors shaping attitudes about specific PEIs.

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. Stigma not only discourages seeking mental health services for depression but also inhibits the acceptance of PEIs. Addressing the pervasive and complex effects of stigma highlights the need to change societal attitudes toward mental illnesses and their treatments and to provide support to patients who may benefit from these interventions. The map also demonstrates the value of conceptual mapping for anticipating and mitigating ethical considerations in the development and use of PEIs.

The influence of prior awareness on views about psychiatric electroceutical interventions among non-clinician stakeholders

Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) are emerging interventions in the treatment of depression and other mood disorders. The uptake of PEIs is strongly influenced by public, caregiver, and patient views. This study examines the influence of prior awareness and of trust in the medico-scientific establishment with respect to non-clinicians' views on PEI among a cohort of U.S. respondents. About 3098 U.S. caregivers, patients, and members of the general public completed an online survey with an embedded experiment to evaluate PEI views by stakeholder, modality, and disease severity. ANOVA statistical tests and logistic regression models were used to identify significant differences between groups and moderating factors. Overall, respondents had greater awareness of antidepressant medication (73-84%) and psychotherapy (68-76%) than of any PEI, and ECT garnered the most prior awareness (29-40%) within each group. Non-clinical respondents most often used websites or social media as information sources, and the least trusted sources included those with notable financial interests. Considering the low awareness level among non-clinicians, the implementation of programs to target and advance awareness levels about the use of PEIs in depression among this population may contribute to reducing negative views around these interventions. Fostering trust in the medico-scientific establishment may also increase public support for PEIs as well as uptake of these treatment modalities.