RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A large-scale online survey of patients and the general public: Preferring safe and noninvasive neuromodulation for mental health
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.01.10.24301043
DO 10.1101/2024.01.10.24301043
A1 Atkinson-Clement, Cyril
A1 Junor, Andrea
A1 Kaiser, Marcus
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/23/2024.01.10.24301043.abstract
AB While neurotechnology provides opportunities for novel mental health interventions, preferences of patients and the general public, and the reasons for their choices are still unclear. Here, we conducted a large-scale online survey with 784 participants, half of them suffering from psychiatric and/or neurological conditions. We asked about techniques ranging from invasive (pharmaceutical drugs and brain implants) to noninvasive approaches (ultrasound, magnetic, or electric stimulation). First, participants had a low level of prior knowledge but were interested and excited about these opportunities. Second, both patients and the general population preferred focused ultrasound stimulation (first choice) while drugs and implants were ranked 3rd and 5th out of five, respectively. Finally, that preference was mainly driven by whether they perceived a technology as safe, rather than as effective. Overall, this survey identifies safety as main criterion for interventions and shows a preference for novel noninvasive approaches such as focused ultrasound neuromodulation.HighlightsFocused ultrasound is the preferred intervention for brain and mental health conditionsThe preference of techniques was consistent between healthy participants and patients suffering from brain or mental health conditions.Getting more information about different neuromodulation techniques reduced confusion and increased feelings of being excited, optimistic, and comfortable with these techniquesThe ranking of preference is linked with the perceived safety but less related with perceived efficiency of techniques indicating safety as more important criterionCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementM.K., C.A., and A.J. were supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/W004488/1 and EP/X01925X/1). M.K. was also supported by the Guangci Professorship Program of Rui Jin Hospital (Shanghai Jiao Tong University).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This online survey was approved by the University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (FMHS 147-1022).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors