Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 160, Issue 12, pp 2501–2507 | Cite as

Reader comments to media reports on psychiatric neurosurgery: past history casts shadows on the future

  • Laura Y. Cabrera
  • Merlin Bittlinger
  • Hayami Lou
  • Sabine Müller
  • Judy Illes
Original Article - Functional Neurosurgery - Other
  • 101 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Functional Neurosurgery – Other

Abstract

Background

Comments made by readers in response to news articles about current events can provide profound insights into public understanding of and perspectives on those events. Here, in follow up to a paper published last year in this journal, we examined reader comments to articles in newspapers and magazines about neurosurgical interventions for treating psychiatric illness.

Method

We conducted a thematic analysis of these comments (N = 662 coded units of data) posted in response to 115 newspaper and magazine articles from four countries (Canada, USA, Germany, and Spain) between 2006 and 2017. The comments were coded using an iteratively refined coding scheme that was structured around four a priori categories based on results from the parent study and two new categories that emerged.

Results

We found many references to historical psychosurgery and mostly negative and pessimistic comments about ablative neurosurgical interventions. Comments to deep brain stimulation were more positive, and comments to optogenetics most controversial. We also found many expressions of distrust of medical professionals in the context of interventions on the brain and concerns about social and individual control.

Conclusions

Overall, results suggest there is still much work to be done to raise public awareness about re-emerging and new neurosurgical interventions. Balanced discussion is needed if these approaches are to find a place in health care for psychiatric disorders.

Keywords

Psychiatric neurosurgery Neuroethics Public perceptions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support from members of the ERA-NET NEURON psychiatric neurosurgery team, and Caitlin Courchesne (Neuroethics Canada) for the thoughtful comments on previous drafts.

Funding

ERA-NET NEURON Team Grant: Ethical, Legal and Social (ELS) Issues #ERN-144241 (JI) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (01GP1621A) (SM). The sponsor had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdullah T, Brown TL (2011) Mental illness stigma and ethnocultural beliefs, values, and norms: an integrative review. Clin Psychol Rev 31(6):934–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer MW (2005) Public perceptions and mass media in the biotechnology controversy. Int J Public Opinion Res 17(1):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabrera LY, Reiner PB (2015) Understanding public (mis)understanding of tDCS for enhancement. Frontiers in integrative Neuroscience 9 (art 30)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabrera LY, Bittlinger M, Lou H, Müller S, Illes J (2018) The re-emergence of psychiatric neurosurgery: insights from a cross-national study of newspaper and magazine coverage. Acta Neurochir 17(1):1–11Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chi MT (1997) Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. J Learn Sci 6(3):271–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Craig DA (2011) Ethical language and themes in news coverage of genetic testing. J Mass Commun Q 77(1):160–174Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diefenbach GJ, Diefenbach D, Baumeister A, West M (1999) Portrayal of lobotomy in the popular press: 1935-1960. J Hist Neurosci 8(1):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission (2013) Eurobarometer: responsible research and innovation (RRI), Science and Technology http://eceuropaeu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_401_enpdf Accessed 24 January 2018
  10. 10.
    Faridani S, Bitton E, Ryokai K, Goldberg K (2010) Opinion space: a scalable tool for browsing online comments. In: CHI '10, ACM press. ACM press, New York, New York, USA, p 1175Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilbert F, Ovadia D (2011) Deep brain stimulation in the media: over-optimistic portrayals call for a new strategy involving journalists and scientists in ethical debates. Frontiers in integrative Neuroscience 5 (Art 16)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Happer C, Philo G (2013) The role of the media in the construction of public belief and social change. J Soc Polit Psych 1(1):321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henrich N, Holmes B (2011) What the public was saying about the H1N1 vaccine: perceptions and issues discussed in on-line comments during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. PLoS One 6(4):e18479–e18412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lauber C, Nordt C, Falcato L, Rössler W (2005) Can a seizure help? The public’s attitude toward electroconvulsive therapy. Psychiatry Res 134(2):205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller S, Riedmüller R, van Oosterhout A (2015) Rivaling paradigms in psychiatric neurosurgery: adjustability versus quick fix versus minimal-invasiveness. Front Integr Neurosci 9(214):165Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nuttin BJ, Cosyns P, Demeulemeester H, Gybels J (1999) Electrical stimulation in anterior limbs of internal capsules in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Lancet 354(9189):1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nuttin BJ, Gybels J, Cosyns P, Gabriels L, al E (2002) Deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders. Neurosurgery 5(12):519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pressman JD (1998) Last resort. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Racine E, Waldman S, Palmour N, Risse D, Illes J (2007) “Currents of hope”: neurostimulation techniques in U.S. and U.K. print media. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 16(03):312–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Regan Á, Shan L, McConnon Á, Marcu A, Raats M, Wall P, Barnett J (2014) Strategies for dismissing dietary risks: insights from user-generated comments online. Health Risk Soc 16(4):308–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rössler W, Salize HJ (1995) Factors affecting public attitudes towards mental health care. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 245(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schläpfer TE, Fins JJ (2010) Deep brain stimulation and the neuroethics of responsible publishing. JAMA 303:775–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schläpfer TE, Lisanby SH, Pallanti S (2010) Separating hope from hype: some ethical implications of the development of deep brain stimulation in psychiatric research and treatment. Brain Stimul 15(5):285–287Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Valenstein ES (1986) Great and desperate cures. Basic Books (AZ), Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weiner RD, Reti IM (2017) Key updates in the clinical application of electroconvulsive therapy. Int Rev Psychiatry 29(2):54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Westerman D, Spence PR, Van Der Heide B (2013) Social media as information source: recency of updates and credibility of information. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19(2):171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization (2016) Investing in treatment for depression and anxiety leads to fourfold return. In: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/depression-anxiety-treatment/en/. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
  28. 28.
    Wright KB (2005) Researching internet-based populations: advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. J Comput-Mediat Commun 10(3):1–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Y. Cabrera
    • 1
  • Merlin Bittlinger
    • 2
  • Hayami Lou
    • 3
  • Sabine Müller
    • 2
  • Judy Illes
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Department of Translational Science and Molecular MedicineMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, CCM, Division of Mind and Brain ResearchBerlin Institute of HealthBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Neuroethics CanadaThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  4. 4.Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics, Neuroethics Canada, Division of Neurology, Department of MedicineThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations