Home › Research › Risk genes beyond APOE
Perceptions of non-invasive brain stimulation and barriers to it's clinical translation: a multi-stakeholder focus group study
Weightman, M.; Robinson, B.; Smyth, H.; Pick, A.; Martin, E.; Walsh, J.; Stagg, C. J.; Fleming et al.. medRxiv (preprint), 2026-08-26
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
ObjectivesNon-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) holds significant promise for treating neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions, yet translation into routine clinical practice remains limited. We aimed to explore stakeholder perceptions of NIBS and barriers to its clinical adoption. MethodsWe conducted focus-group interviews with 33 participants across three key stakeholder groups in the UK: (1) people with lived experience of brain injury, depression, or dementia; (2) healthcare professionals; and (3) researchers. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify themes in the data. FindingsSeven key themes emerged spanning preferences, hope and disappointment, communication, accessibility, infrastructure, ethical/regulatory uncertainty, and the evidence base. Across groups, NIBS was viewed positively and with cautious optimism, but substantial barriers were highlighted, including limited public and clinical awareness, challenges in demonstrating cost-effectiveness, infrastructure constraints, and difficulties navigating regulatory and translational pathways. Participants emphasised the importance of clear communication, improved education, and stronger interdisciplinary collaboration to support adoption. Notably, stakeholders prioritised evidence of clinical efficacy and usability over detailed mechanistic understanding. ConclusionsThese findings provide actionable insights into the translational gap in NIBS and highlight priorities for facilitating its integration into clinical care.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Weightman, M., Robinson, B., Smyth, H., Pick, A., Martin, E., Walsh, J., et al. (2026). Perceptions of non-invasive brain stimulation and barriers to it's clinical translation: a multi-stakeholder focus group study. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.24.26361180
Vancouver
Weightman M, Robinson B, Smyth H, Pick A, Martin E, Walsh J, et al. Perceptions of non-invasive brain stimulation and barriers to it's clinical translation: a multi-stakeholder focus group study. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.08.24.26361180.
BibTeX
@article{weightman2026-f57e2efc,
author = {Weightman, M. and Robinson, B. and Smyth, H. and Pick, A. and Martin, E. and Walsh, J. and Stagg, C. J. and Fleming and others},
title = {{Perceptions of non-invasive brain stimulation and barriers to it's clinical translation: a multi-stakeholder focus group study}},
journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.08.24.26361180},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.24.26361180}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- ObjectivesNon-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) holds significant promise for treating neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions, yet translation into routine clinical practice remains limited.
Why it matters
This focus group study explored stakeholder views on non-invasive brain stimulation and found cautious optimism alongside barriers such as limited awareness, cost-effectiveness challenges and regulatory uncertainty. It concerns barriers to clinical adoption of a potential treatment, not evidence that it treats or prevents Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Participants33
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 27 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on impact for its field and year, so that was left out: it earned 25 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 27 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 33 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Melanie K. Fleming: h-index 22 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of Oxford: institution h-index 2,205 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 7 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 94 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 27 out of 100. |
| Total | 27 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk genes beyond APOE
Also in Risk genes beyond APOE
109 studies in the library are filed under Risk genes beyond APOE with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk genes beyond APOE hub.