• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Jumping through the hoops: Barriers and other ethical concerns regarding the use of psychiatric electroceutical interventions.跳圈游戏:关于使用精神科电疗干预的障碍和其他伦理问题。
Psychiatry Res. 2022 Jul;313:114612. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114612. Epub 2022 May 11.
2
Stakeholders' Ethical Concerns Regarding Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions: Results from a US Nationwide Survey.利益相关者对精神科电疗干预的伦理关注:来自美国全国性调查的结果。
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2024;15(1):11-21. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2023.2224592. Epub 2023 Jun 21.
3
Last Resort Interventions?: A Qualitative Study of Psychiatrists' Experience with and Views on Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions.最后手段干预?:精神科医生对电神经刺激治疗精神疾病的经验和看法的定性研究。
Psychiatr Q. 2021 Jun;92(2):419-430. doi: 10.1007/s11126-020-09819-1.
4
A qualitative study of key stakeholders' perceived risks and benefits of psychiatric electroceutical interventions.一项关于关键利益相关者对精神科电治疗干预措施的感知风险和益处的定性研究。
Health Risk Soc. 2021;23(5-6):217-235. doi: 10.1080/13698575.2021.1979194. Epub 2021 Oct 24.
5
Looking through the lens of stigma: Understanding and anticipating concerns about the responsible development and use of psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs).透过污名的视角:理解并预见对精神科电治疗干预措施(PEIs)的负责任开发与使用的担忧。
SSM Ment Health. 2023 Dec 15;4. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmmh.2023.100261. Epub 2023 Sep 6.
6
Beyond the Cuckoo's Nest: Patient and Public Attitudes about Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions.超越杜鹃窝:关于精神科电疗干预的患者和公众态度。
Psychiatr Q. 2021 Dec;92(4):1425-1438. doi: 10.1007/s11126-021-09916-9. Epub 2021 Apr 17.
7
The differential effects of psychiatrists' and patients' prior experiences on views about psychiatric electroceutical interventions.精神科医生和患者先前经验对电疗干预精神科治疗观点的差异影响。
J Psychiatr Res. 2024 Feb;170:11-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.12.013. Epub 2023 Dec 11.
8
They Affect the Person, but for Better or Worse? Perceptions of Electroceutical Interventions for Depression Among Psychiatrists, Patients, and the Public.它们对人有影响,是好是坏?精神科医生、患者和公众对电疗干预抑郁症的看法。
Qual Health Res. 2021 Nov;31(13):2542-2553. doi: 10.1177/10497323211037642. Epub 2021 Oct 21.
9
The influence of prior awareness on views about psychiatric electroceutical interventions among non-clinician stakeholders.先前认知对非临床利益相关者关于精神科电治疗干预观点的影响。
Npj Ment Health Res. 2023 May 3;2(1):6. doi: 10.1038/s44184-023-00028-9.
10
"They Are Invasive in Different Ways.": Stakeholders' Perceptions of the Invasiveness of Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions.“它们以不同方式具有侵入性”:利益相关者对精神科电治疗干预侵入性的看法
AJOB Neurosci. 2023 Jan-Mar;14(1):1-12. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2021.1958098. Epub 2021 Aug 13.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessment of psychometric properties of instruments for measuring health system literacy: A systematic review study protocol using COSMIN guidelines.测量卫生系统素养工具的心理测量特性评估:一项使用COSMIN指南的系统评价研究方案
BMJ Open. 2025 Sep 14;15(9):e102788. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-102788.
2
Current Neuroethical Perspectives on Deep Brain Stimulation and Neuromodulation for Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review of the Past 10 Years.当前关于神经精神疾病的脑深部电刺激和神经调节的神经伦理学观点:过去10年的范围综述
Diseases. 2025 Aug 14;13(8):262. doi: 10.3390/diseases13080262.
3
Rewriting the Script: The Need for Effective Education to Address Racial Disparities in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Uptake in BIPOC Communities.改写剧本:在黑人和有色人种社区中,为解决经颅磁刺激治疗获取方面的种族差异而进行有效教育的必要性。
Neuroethics. 2024 Apr;17(1). doi: 10.1007/s12152-024-09542-9. Epub 2024 Jan 27.
4
Consensus review and considerations on TMS to treat depression: A comprehensive update endorsed by the National Network of Depression Centers, the Clinical TMS Society, and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.经抑郁中心国家网络、临床经颅磁刺激学会和国际临床神经生理学联合会认可的关于经颅磁刺激治疗抑郁症的共识性综述与考量:全面更新版
Clin Neurophysiol. 2025 Feb;170:206-233. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2024.12.015. Epub 2024 Dec 19.
5
Explaining key stakeholders' preferences for potential policies governing psychiatric electroceutical intervention use.解释关键利益相关者对有关精神科电治疗干预使用的潜在政策的偏好。
Npj Ment Health Res. 2024 Nov 6;3(1):52. doi: 10.1038/s44184-024-00096-5.
6
Defining a Neurostimulation-Focused Subspecialty: Perspectives Inspired by a Debate at the 2023 Clinical TMS Society Annual Meeting.定义一个以神经刺激为重点的亚专业:受2023年临床经颅磁刺激学会年会一场辩论启发的观点
Acad Psychiatry. 2024 Oct;48(5):463-470. doi: 10.1007/s40596-024-02025-2. Epub 2024 Aug 15.
7
Educating the next generation of psychiatrists in the use of clinical neuromodulation therapies: what should all psychiatry residents know?对下一代精神科医生进行临床神经调节疗法使用方面的教育:所有精神科住院医师应该知道什么?
Front Psychiatry. 2024 May 15;15:1397102. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1397102. eCollection 2024.
8
Perceived Barriers to Using Neurostimulation: A National Survey of Psychiatrists, Patients, Caregivers, and the General Public.使用神经刺激疗法的感知障碍:一项针对精神科医生、患者、护理人员及普通公众的全国性调查。
J ECT. 2024 Jun 1;40(2):111-117. doi: 10.1097/YCT.0000000000000990. Epub 2024 Jan 24.
9
Looking through the lens of stigma: Understanding and anticipating concerns about the responsible development and use of psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs).透过污名的视角:理解并预见对精神科电治疗干预措施(PEIs)的负责任开发与使用的担忧。
SSM Ment Health. 2023 Dec 15;4. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmmh.2023.100261. Epub 2023 Sep 6.
10
Advances in Deep Brain Stimulation: From Mechanisms to Applications.深部脑刺激的进展:从机制到应用。
J Neurosci. 2023 Nov 8;43(45):7575-7586. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1427-23.2023.

本文引用的文献

1
Barriers to the Implementation of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT): Results From a Nationwide Survey of ECT Practitioners.电抽搐治疗(ECT)实施障碍:一项全国范围内 ECT 从业者调查的结果。
Psychiatr Serv. 2021 Jul 1;72(7):752-757. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000387. Epub 2021 May 11.
2
Barriers to Brain Stimulation Therapies for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Beyond Cost Effectiveness.难治性抑郁症脑刺激疗法的障碍:超越成本效益
Can J Psychiatry. 2020 Mar;65(3):193-195. doi: 10.1177/0706743719893584. Epub 2019 Dec 9.
3
Cost-Utility Analysis of Electroconvulsive Therapy and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Ontario.安大略省难治性抑郁症的电抽搐治疗与重复经颅磁刺激的成本-效用分析。
Can J Psychiatry. 2020 Mar;65(3):164-173. doi: 10.1177/0706743719890167. Epub 2019 Dec 5.
4
Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: the evidence thus far.重复经颅磁刺激治疗难治性抑郁症的疗效:目前的证据。
Gen Psychiatr. 2019 Aug 12;32(4):e100074. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2019-100074. eCollection 2019.
5
A Prospective Study on Structural and Attitudinal Barriers to Professional Help-Seeking for Currently Untreated Mental Health Problems in the Community.一项关于社区中当前未治疗的心理健康问题寻求专业帮助的结构和态度障碍的前瞻性研究。
J Behav Health Serv Res. 2020 Jan;47(1):54-69. doi: 10.1007/s11414-019-09662-8.
6
Psychiatric Neurosurgery: A Survey on the Perceptions of Psychiatrists and Residents.精神神经外科学:精神科医生和住院医师认知的调查。
Can J Neurol Sci. 2019 May;46(3):303-310. doi: 10.1017/cjn.2019.5. Epub 2019 Apr 12.
7
Attitudes Toward Electroconvulsive Therapy Among Involuntary and Voluntary Patients.非自愿和自愿患者对电抽搐治疗的态度。
J ECT. 2019 Sep;35(3):165-169. doi: 10.1097/YCT.0000000000000571.
8
Online comments about psychiatric neurosurgery and psychopharmacological interventions: Public perceptions and concerns.关于精神神经外科学和精神药理学干预的在线评论:公众的看法和担忧。
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jan;220:184-192. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.021. Epub 2018 Nov 12.
9
Reader comments to media reports on psychiatric neurosurgery: past history casts shadows on the future.读者对精神神经外科学媒体报道的评论:既往史为未来蒙上阴影。
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018 Dec;160(12):2501-2507. doi: 10.1007/s00701-018-3696-4. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
10
Conflicts of interest and industry professional relationships in psychiatric neurosurgery: a comparative literature review.精神神经外科学中的利益冲突和行业专业关系:文献比较综述。
Neurosurg Focus. 2018 Aug;45(2):E20. doi: 10.3171/2018.4.FOCUS17399.

跳圈游戏:关于使用精神科电疗干预的障碍和其他伦理问题。

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

机构信息

Center 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.

College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.

出版信息

Psychiatry Res. 2022 Jul;313:114612. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114612. Epub 2022 May 11.

DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114612
PMID:35584563
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10516532/
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.

摘要

利益相关者对使用精神科电疗干预(PEIs)的障碍和其他伦理问题的看法,这些干预措施使用电或磁刺激来治疗精神疾病,如治疗抵抗性抑郁症(TRD),可能会影响这些干预措施的采用。本研究调查了精神科医生、抑郁症患者和公众成员的这些看法。我们对每个组的 16 名成员进行了半结构化的定性访谈,以检查他们对实际障碍和伦理问题的看法。我们使用定性内容分析来确定相关主题,并比较了利益相关者群体之间的发现。所有组的参与者都提出了对干预措施的获取限制的担忧,包括干预措施的成本和可及性,这些都跨越了所有的 PEIs,包括那些仍处于实验阶段的,也跨越了所有组。大多数参与者都对知情同意提出了担忧,包括获得充分、适当和可理解的信息。我们的研究结果表明,这三个利益相关者群体对使用 PEIs 治疗 TRD 的相似的结构性和态度障碍有类似的伦理担忧。这些结果确定了必须解决的关键问题,以便充分发挥 PEIs 的潜力。未来更大样本的研究将有助于更好地了解如何解决这些对 TRD 患者的治疗障碍。