IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v220y2019icp184-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online comments about psychiatric neurosurgery and psychopharmacological interventions: Public perceptions and concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Cabrera, Laura Y.
  • Brandt, Marisa
  • McKenzie, Rachel
  • Bluhm, Robyn

Abstract

The field of biological psychiatry is controversial, with both academics and members of the public questioning the validity and the responsible use of psychiatric technological interventions. The field of neuroethics provides insight into these controversies by examining key themes that characterize specific topics, attitudes, and reasoning tools that people use to evaluate interventions in the brain and mind. This study offers new empirical neuroethical insights into how the public responds to the use and development of psychiatric technological interventions by comparing how the public evaluates pharmacological and neurosurgical psychiatric interventions, in the context of online comments on news media articles about these topics. We analyzed 1142 comments from 108 articles dealing with psychopharmacological and psychiatric neurosurgery interventions on websites of major circulation USA newspapers and magazines published between 2005 and 2015. Personal anecdote, medical professional issues, medicalization, social issues, disadvantages, scientific issues and cautionary realism were among the main themes raised by commenters. The insights derived from the comments can contribute to improving communication between professionals and the public as well as to incorporating the public's views in policy decisions about psychiatric interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Cabrera, Laura Y. & Brandt, Marisa & McKenzie, Rachel & Bluhm, Robyn, 2019. "Online comments about psychiatric neurosurgery and psychopharmacological interventions: Public perceptions and concerns," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 184-192.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:220:y:2019:i:c:p:184-192
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618306555
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:220:y:2019:i:c:p:184-192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.