Ethical considerations of deep brain stimulation for treatment refractory schizophrenia: surveying stakeholders

Abstract Introduction Ethical concerns have been raised by both current and historically controversial neurosurgical interventions for treatment-refractory schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (TR-SZ). Considering advances in next-generation deep brain stimulation (DBS), initial success in tre...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Judith M. Gault, Nicola Cascella, Nidal Moukaddam, Stephanie Lehto, Patrick Hosokawa, Paul S. Appelbaum, Akira Sawa, Jocelyn Lippman-Bell, William S. Anderson, Wayne Goodman, Sameer A. Sheth, Daniel Kramer, John A. Thompson, Elyn R. Saks, Rachel A. Davis
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-08-01
Series:BMC Psychiatry
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-07128-0
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849226032945561600
author Judith M. Gault
Nicola Cascella
Nidal Moukaddam
Stephanie Lehto
Patrick Hosokawa
Paul S. Appelbaum
Akira Sawa
Jocelyn Lippman-Bell
William S. Anderson
Wayne Goodman
Sameer A. Sheth
Daniel Kramer
John A. Thompson
Elyn R. Saks
Rachel A. Davis
author_facet Judith M. Gault
Nicola Cascella
Nidal Moukaddam
Stephanie Lehto
Patrick Hosokawa
Paul S. Appelbaum
Akira Sawa
Jocelyn Lippman-Bell
William S. Anderson
Wayne Goodman
Sameer A. Sheth
Daniel Kramer
John A. Thompson
Elyn R. Saks
Rachel A. Davis
author_sort Judith M. Gault
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Introduction Ethical concerns have been raised by both current and historically controversial neurosurgical interventions for treatment-refractory schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (TR-SZ). Considering advances in next-generation deep brain stimulation (DBS), initial success in treating a few cases of TR-SZ, and how challenging trial enrollment is, transparency and disseminating knowledge about DBS is important, as is input from involved groups. Here information was presented about DBS as an experimental treatment option for TR-SZ to stakeholders to gauge enthusiasm after consideration of potential risks and benefits. Methods Stakeholders were presented with information about DBS (total n = 629). Opinions about whether DBS should be an option for people with TR-SZ and acceptable response rates considering DBS risks were collected from research participants with SZ, treatment-refractory Parkinson’s disease (TR-PD) approved for DBS, caregivers for either SZ or TR-PD participants, and attendees at medical school presentations. In addition, the attendees were asked to decide whether DBS is appropriate for 4 cases who want DBS, one with PD, 2 with OCD and 1 with SZ. Chi-square, pairwise comparisons, and Duncan Multiple Range Test were performed with significance at p < 0.05. Results Most (83%) research participants and presentation audience members agreed that DBS should be an option for TR-SZ and 40% thought the potential benefits outweigh the risks of DBS with at least a 41–60% response rate. Audience approval of DBS was similar for the PD (30%), SZ (52%) and the OCD case with psychosis (56%), but there was a higher rate of approval (77%) for the OCD case whose compulsions involved self-harm. The majority (73–86%) of the audience thought that they would want to try DBS if they had TR-PD, TR-OCD, or TR-SZ. Conclusions Despite difficulty in recruiting patients for DBS clinical trials for TR-SZ, the consensus among 83% of stakeholders was that DBS should be an option for people with severe TR-SZ. Our approach to disseminate general knowledge then gather opinions among diverse stakeholders was to ensure the development of DBS clinical trials for the new indication TR-SZ is a relevant option despite the known difficulties in enrollment. These findings may help prevent disparities in access to advanced DBS therapeutics.
format Article
id doaj-art-00730209dcfe4d43b3e09ab03c62dd55
institution Kabale University
issn 1471-244X
language English
publishDate 2025-08-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Psychiatry
spelling doaj-art-00730209dcfe4d43b3e09ab03c62dd552025-08-24T11:42:49ZengBMCBMC Psychiatry1471-244X2025-08-012511910.1186/s12888-025-07128-0Ethical considerations of deep brain stimulation for treatment refractory schizophrenia: surveying stakeholdersJudith M. Gault0Nicola Cascella1Nidal Moukaddam2Stephanie Lehto3Patrick Hosokawa4Paul S. Appelbaum5Akira Sawa6Jocelyn Lippman-Bell7William S. Anderson8Wayne Goodman9Sameer A. Sheth10Daniel Kramer11John A. Thompson12Elyn R. Saks13Rachel A. Davis14Department of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusDepartment of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins UniversityDepartment of Psychiatry, Baylor College of MedicineDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia UniversityDepartment of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins UniversityPhiladelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins UniversityDepartment of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of MedicineDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusUniversity of Southern CaliforniaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusAbstract Introduction Ethical concerns have been raised by both current and historically controversial neurosurgical interventions for treatment-refractory schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (TR-SZ). Considering advances in next-generation deep brain stimulation (DBS), initial success in treating a few cases of TR-SZ, and how challenging trial enrollment is, transparency and disseminating knowledge about DBS is important, as is input from involved groups. Here information was presented about DBS as an experimental treatment option for TR-SZ to stakeholders to gauge enthusiasm after consideration of potential risks and benefits. Methods Stakeholders were presented with information about DBS (total n = 629). Opinions about whether DBS should be an option for people with TR-SZ and acceptable response rates considering DBS risks were collected from research participants with SZ, treatment-refractory Parkinson’s disease (TR-PD) approved for DBS, caregivers for either SZ or TR-PD participants, and attendees at medical school presentations. In addition, the attendees were asked to decide whether DBS is appropriate for 4 cases who want DBS, one with PD, 2 with OCD and 1 with SZ. Chi-square, pairwise comparisons, and Duncan Multiple Range Test were performed with significance at p < 0.05. Results Most (83%) research participants and presentation audience members agreed that DBS should be an option for TR-SZ and 40% thought the potential benefits outweigh the risks of DBS with at least a 41–60% response rate. Audience approval of DBS was similar for the PD (30%), SZ (52%) and the OCD case with psychosis (56%), but there was a higher rate of approval (77%) for the OCD case whose compulsions involved self-harm. The majority (73–86%) of the audience thought that they would want to try DBS if they had TR-PD, TR-OCD, or TR-SZ. Conclusions Despite difficulty in recruiting patients for DBS clinical trials for TR-SZ, the consensus among 83% of stakeholders was that DBS should be an option for people with severe TR-SZ. Our approach to disseminate general knowledge then gather opinions among diverse stakeholders was to ensure the development of DBS clinical trials for the new indication TR-SZ is a relevant option despite the known difficulties in enrollment. These findings may help prevent disparities in access to advanced DBS therapeutics.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-07128-0Deep brain stimulationEthicsSchizophreniaObsessive–compulsive disorderParkinson’s diseaseStakeholder opinions
spellingShingle Judith M. Gault
Nicola Cascella
Nidal Moukaddam
Stephanie Lehto
Patrick Hosokawa
Paul S. Appelbaum
Akira Sawa
Jocelyn Lippman-Bell
William S. Anderson
Wayne Goodman
Sameer A. Sheth
Daniel Kramer
John A. Thompson
Elyn R. Saks
Rachel A. Davis
Ethical considerations of deep brain stimulation for treatment refractory schizophrenia: surveying stakeholders
BMC Psychiatry
Deep brain stimulation
Ethics
Schizophrenia
Obsessive–compulsive disorder
Parkinson’s disease
Stakeholder opinions
title Ethical considerations of deep brain stimulation for treatment refractory schizophrenia: surveying stakeholders
title_full Ethical considerations of deep brain stimulation for treatment refractory schizophrenia: surveying stakeholders
title_fullStr Ethical considerations of deep brain stimulation for treatment refractory schizophrenia: surveying stakeholders
title_full_unstemmed Ethical considerations of deep brain stimulation for treatment refractory schizophrenia: surveying stakeholders
title_short Ethical considerations of deep brain stimulation for treatment refractory schizophrenia: surveying stakeholders
title_sort ethical considerations of deep brain stimulation for treatment refractory schizophrenia surveying stakeholders
topic Deep brain stimulation
Ethics
Schizophrenia
Obsessive–compulsive disorder
Parkinson’s disease
Stakeholder opinions
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-07128-0
work_keys_str_mv AT judithmgault ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT nicolacascella ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT nidalmoukaddam ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT stephanielehto ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT patrickhosokawa ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT paulsappelbaum ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT akirasawa ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT jocelynlippmanbell ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT williamsanderson ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT waynegoodman ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT sameerasheth ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT danielkramer ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT johnathompson ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT elynrsaks ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders
AT racheladavis ethicalconsiderationsofdeepbrainstimulationfortreatmentrefractoryschizophreniasurveyingstakeholders