Exploring Perceptions and Experiences of Patients Undergoing Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) for Depression and Adjustment Disorder in Romanian Private Practices.

Background and Objectives: Mental health disorders, including major depressive disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, present a significant global burden, with early onset and progression leading to substantial individual and social impacts. While pharmacotherapy remains the standard treatment, many patients experience inadequate symptom relief or intolerable side effects. In this context, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has emerged as a non-invasive, well-tolerated neuromodulation technique offering an alternative treatment option. Although its clinical efficacy is well-documented, limited research exists on patient perceptions, decision-making processes and barriers to TMS utilization in private healthcare settings, particularly in Romania. This study explores patients' experiences with TMS, factors influencing their treatment choices and comparative views on its acceptability relative to pharmacological interventions. Materials and Methods: A qualitative research design was employed, using semi-structured interviews with 20 patients diagnosed with MDD or AD who had undergone TMS therapy as part of two pilot studies which were non-randomized in Romanian private practices. Data were collected via interviews and analyzed thematically to identify patterns in patient perceptions, decision-making factors and treatment experiences. Results: Participants reported predominantly positive perceptions of TMS, citing improvements in mood, anxiety reduction, and enhanced daily functioning. The most common motivations for seeking TMS included dissatisfaction with pharmacotherapy, recommendations from physicians or peers and information obtained via online sources. TMS was perceived as a safer and more tolerable alternative to medication, particularly due to its lack of systemic side effects. However, barriers such as high treatment costs, limited insurance coverage and logistical challenges in accessing TMS services were noted as significant deterrents. Conclusions: The study highlights the strong preference for TMS among patients who seek alternatives to pharmacotherapy, with key motivators including efficacy, tolerability and non-invasiveness. However, systemic barriers to access remain a critical challenge in private healthcare settings. Future research should focus on expanding accessibility, improving patient education and integrating TMS into broader mental healthcare frameworks to optimize treatment outcomes.