Dataset Information

A qualitative study of key stakeholders' perceived risks and benefits of psychiatric electroceutical interventions.

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.

SUBMITTER: Cabrera LY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9103575 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative study of key stakeholders' perceived risks and benefits of psychiatric electroceutical interventions.

Cabrera Laura Y LY Nowak Gerald R GR McCright Aaron M AM Achtyes Eric E Bluhm Robyn R

Health, risk & society 20211024 5-6

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 ...[more]

PMID: 35574212

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScarce treatment resources put pressure on mental health services prompting innovations in service provision. Various innovative strategies have been introduced to provide patients with improved and effective treatment due to increased demands for mental health services. In 2016 a district psychiatric centre (DPC) started a brief treatment program to provide early and effective help for moderate depression and anxiety. There is little evidence regarding the potential benefits that different mental health patients may experience after receiving brief therapy treatment. Moreover, few studies have explored the experiences of referring general practitioners (GPs) with different patient outcomes after brief therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term experiences of patients who received brief therapy at a DPC at least one year ago, as well as the experiences of general practitioners (GPs) who referred patients for such treatment since 2016. Specifically, the study sought to determine patterns in the patients' stories and GPs' experiences to see if it could provide new insight for further studies.MethodsWe conducted individual interviews with a total of seventeen participants, consisting of eleven patients and six GPs. Using an exploratory approach, we analyzed patients' narratives as they described them in the interviews, employing inductive and thematic analysis techniques. The GPs' experiences of referring several patients to brief therapy were also subjected to thematic analysis. In addition, we synthesized the patients' experiences into condensed stories for comparison. The experiences of GPs, who had referred patients to this brief treatment program over several years, were compared with the patients' experiences and reflections one year after receiving brief therapy. This comparison aimed to challenge and deepen the understanding of condensed patient stories.ResultsThe main results are presented as three condensed patient stories: A) Coping with mental problems; B) A path to another treatment; and C) Confusion and lost hope. The GPs' experiences are included in each condensed patient story to challenge and elaborate on relevant aspects.ConclusionTime-limited brief therapy was experienced as beneficial for patients with moderate affective and anxiety disorders but was experienced as unsuitable for those with more severe conditions. This raises important questions about the appropriateness of offering brief therapy to a diverse patient population and the efficient use of healthcare resources. We recommend further research to enhance understanding and develop tailored treatment services for different ailments. Identifying which patients benefit most from specific therapies can improve outcomes and resource allocation. An important improvement measure might be to enhance early communication between patients, General Practitioners (GPs), and District Psychiatric Centres (DPCs) before referrals. Ensuring brief therapy is targeted to those likely to benefit the most will enhance treatment effectiveness. Additionally, we suggest implementing joint assessment meetings to facilitate comprehensive information exchange and coordination among different care levels. This approach would improve assessments, treatment planning, and follow-up strategies, ultimately leading to better patient care and resource management.

Project description:ObjectivesPlatform trials were used successfully in adult populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. By testing multiple treatments within a single trial, platform trials can help identify the most effective treatments (and any interactions between treatments) for patients more quickly and with less burden for patients and their families. The aim of this qualitative research was to inform the design of the first adaptive platform trial for paediatric intensive care in the UK with young people, parents/carers and paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff.DesignQualitative semistructured focus group study. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.ParticipantsYoung people, parents/carers, and PICU medical, nursing and research staff.SettingThe UK.ResultsA total of 86 participants (18 young people; 15 parents/carers; 53 PICU staff) took part in 1 of 10 focus groups between May and September 2023. Participants viewed the proposed PICU platform trial and use of research without prior consent to be acceptable. Findings provide insight into how the PICU platform trial should be designed and operationalised, including having a broad and inclusive population eligible for inclusion onto the platform trial, with different inclusion and exclusion criteria for each domain; starting the trial with no more than three domains and prioritising the outcomes of Child quality of life and Survival (all participants). Optimal governance structure and suggestions about how any challenges to the success of the full trial can be overcome are also presented.ConclusionsYoung people, parents/carers and PICU staff viewed the proposed PICU platform trial to be acceptable. These key stakeholders supported us with the design of an adaptive platform trial for PICU that has a rigorous methodology, yet can be operationalised in a family-centred way, to provide high-quality evidence that can support clinical decision-making and guide the treatment of critically ill children. Our findings have informed the PICU platform trial protocol.

Dataset Information

A qualitative study of key stakeholders' perceived risks and benefits of psychiatric electroceutical interventions.

Publications

A qualitative study of key stakeholders' perceived risks and benefits of psychiatric electroceutical interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets