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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2025-08-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-07128-0
Primary Topic
Neurological disorders and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Seppo Lehto, Wayne K. Goodman, Nicola G. Cascella, William S. Anderson et al.
BMC Psychiatry
Neurological disorders and treatments
article

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

Seppo Lehto, Wayne K. Goodman, Nicola G. Cascella, William S. Anderson, Judith Gault, Rachel A. Davis, Nidal Moukaddam, John A. Thompson, Akira Sawa, Elyn R. Saks, Paul S. Appelbaum, Jocelyn J. Lippman‐Bell, Patrick Hosokawa, Daniel R. Kramer, Sameer A. Sheth
article en

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

BMC PsychiatryVol. 25(1)
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (US), University of Southern California (US), Johns Hopkins University (US), Baylor College of Medicine (US), University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (US), Columbia University (US)
National Institutes of Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Neurological disorders and treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.