Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has shown potential as a treatment approach for a range of neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions. Despite promise in research settings, routine clinical integration remains limited. This study aimed to explore how multiple stakeholder groups perceive non-invasive brain stimulation and to identify perceived barriers and priorities for its translation into clinical practice.
The authors conducted focus-group interviews in the United Kingdom with 33 participants across three stakeholder categories: (1) people with lived experience of brain injury, depression, or dementia; (2) healthcare professionals; and (3) researchers. The sampling and exact recruitment methods are reported in the source article. All participants provided electronic written informed consent prior to participation.
A reflexive thematic analysis approach was applied to the focus-group data to identify patterns and themes across stakeholder responses. The analytical process yielded seven primary themes that encapsulate perceptions of NIBS and the main perceived barriers to its clinical translation.
The study identified seven overarching themes: preferences, hope and disappointment, communication, accessibility, infrastructure, ethical/regulatory uncertainty, and the evidence base. These themes reflect both affective and pragmatic considerations that stakeholders used when evaluating NIBS as a clinical option.
Across stakeholder groups, NIBS was generally viewed positively and with cautious optimism. Participants recognised the therapeutic potential of NIBS for neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions but also emphasised tempered expectations. While stakeholders expressed hope for improved outcomes, they also described experiences or anticipations of disappointment where results did not meet expectations.
Stakeholders placed higher value on demonstrable clinical efficacy and practical usability than on detailed mechanistic explanation. In other words, evidence that an intervention reliably improves clinically meaningful outcomes and can be implemented in routine care was prioritised over deeper mechanistic understanding of how effects are generated.
Participants across groups identified several substantive barriers to adopting NIBS in routine clinical practice:
Limited public and clinician awareness about NIBS modalities and their appropriate clinical roles.
Challenges in demonstrating cost-effectiveness to healthcare systems and commissioners, which is necessary for scalable adoption.
Infrastructure constraints, including clinical space, equipment, and staffing models needed to deliver NIBS at scale.
Difficulties navigating regulatory and translational pathways, with uncertainty about ethical and regulatory requirements for clinical deployment.
Perceptions that the current evidence base may be insufficiently robust or aligned with stakeholders’ priorities, particularly regarding clinically meaningful endpoints and real-world usability.
These barriers were framed as practical and systemic rather than purely scientific; they reflect the translational gap between controlled research settings and routine clinical services.
Participants suggested several priorities to facilitate clinical translation of NIBS:
Improve communication strategies targeted at both the public and clinical audiences to raise awareness and set realistic expectations.
Enhance education and training for healthcare professionals so that clinicians can evaluate, refer to, or deliver NIBS appropriately.
Strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and service planners to align research questions with clinical needs and implementation realities.
Prioritise research that demonstrates clinical efficacy, usability, and cost-effectiveness in real-world settings to inform commissioning and service design.
Clarify regulatory and ethical pathways to reduce uncertainty for teams aiming to translate devices and protocols into clinical care.
The study received ethics approval from the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee (MS IDREC; Reference MSIDREC 880646). All participants provided written electronic informed consent. Competing interests were declared: one author (CJS) is an advisor for NeuroHarmonics LTD; no other conflicts were reported in the source. The authors state that all study data are available on reasonable request.
Funders reported in the article include the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, the Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence in Restorative Neural Dynamics, the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, and the Wellcome Trust.
This article is a preprint posted on medRxiv and has not been peer reviewed. The source notes that findings should not be used to guide clinical practice at this stage. The study design, sample size, and focus-group methodology are described in the source; any further methodological details, quantitative measures, or participant characteristics beyond what is summarised here are as reported in the original preprint.
Through focus groups with people with lived experience, healthcare professionals, and researchers, the study identifies a consistent pattern: stakeholders welcome the therapeutic potential of NIBS but see a range of practical, infrastructural, regulatory, and evidence-related barriers that impede clinical translation. Priorities to address these barriers include clearer communication, enhanced education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and stronger real-world evidence of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. These insights are positioned by the authors as actionable directions to help close the translational gap for non-invasive brain stimulation.