Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-2hk6m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-22T18:10:02.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Co-Producing a Survey on Prospective Acceptability of Neuromodulation for Mental Health Conditions with Lived Experience Experts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2025

Sue Fen Tan
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Paul Briley
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
NIHR MindTech HealthTech Research Centre
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Aims: Non-invasive brain stimulation (“neuromodulation”) techniques, including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), are used to modulate brain excitability and connectivity. TMS is approved for treating depression in the United Kingdom and preliminary evidence suggests that combining TMS and TES may enhance therapeutic effects. While neuromodulation is generally well-tolerated in research settings, its acceptability among the broader patient population remains unclear due to limited exposure, awareness, and information accessibility. Understanding prospective acceptability, defined as the perceived appropriateness of an intervention before its application, is crucial for improving treatment uptake and addressing concerns about safety and feasibility. We aimed to co-produce a survey with lived experience experts to assess the acceptability of individual and combined neuromodulation techniques among potential service users.

Methods: The study was co-developed with our Neuromodulation Experts-by-experience Advisory patient and public involvement (PPI) group. We underwent three rounds of iterative feedback to refine the survey focus, structure, and questions. A scoping review of existing literature on prospective acceptability of neuromodulation techniques informed the content, alongside the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Given the novelty of combined (TMS+TES) neuromodulation, no prior informational materials exist. PPI members advised it was critical to produce accompanying videos and leaflets to briefly illustrate the different neuromodulation techniques. The video scripts and leaflet content were produced in collaboration with three PPI members who tried the neuromodulation techniques, to avoid rehearsed scripts and ensure honest reviews of the techniques.

Results: The final survey version was adapted to maximise clarity of questions, engagement, and completion rates. The survey incorporated questions on awareness, perceived effectiveness, ethical considerations, and practical burden of different neuromodulation techniques. Online and paper versions of the survey were created to ensure accessibility. We successfully produced three information videos within 90-second target duration featuring PPI members and lead researchers. We developed a supplementary infographic leaflet for enhanced comprehension and accessibility.

Conclusion: Engaging stakeholders through PPI was instrumental in developing the survey to ensure accessibility and relevance for diverse participants with lived experience of mental health conditions. End-user involvement in the design process improved survey comprehensibility, highlighting the importance of co-production in developing effective research tools. Findings from this survey will provide insights into the acceptability of novel neuromodulation techniques, ultimately informing future clinical implementation and patient-centred research strategies.

Type
Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.