I was told it restarts your brain: knowledge, power, and women’s experiences of ECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A discrepancy exists between clinician-led studies of people's experience of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and consumer-led studies, with the former typically being much more positive about the efficacy and side effects of ECT compared with the latter. Qualitative in-depth explorations of people's experiences of ECT are relatively rare, particularly those looking specifically at women's experience of ECT. AIMS: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore women's experiences of ECT, particularly their experience of knowledge and power related to ECT. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of the interviews with nine women resulted in four main themes emerging from the interviews with the women: (i) "he really didn't say much," (ii) "I'm going to be very upset with you," (iii) "I was just desperate," and (iv) "it was like we were cattle." CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants found their experiences with ECT to be quite negative, and characterized by a lack of knowledge during the procedure, and a lack of power throughout the entire process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".