All I have is a void: Women's perceptions of the benefits and side effects of ECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent reviews of the benefits and risks associated with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) have often reported mixed and conflicting results. Although there are very few qualitative studies on ECT, qualitative research offers the advantage of in-depth explorations into how people perceive and experience ECT. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this qualitative study was to explore women's experiences and perceptions of the benefits and side effects associated with having ECT. METHODS: The authors used narrative inquiry and in-depth interviews to obtain nine women's accounts and stories of ECT, focusing particularly on their accounts of perceived benefits and side effects associated with ECT. RESULTS: Qualitative thematic analysis of the interviews with nine women resulted in four main themes emerging from the interviews: "it's sort of like housecleaning," "I don't remember the wedding," made me stupider," and "putting them in a cage with a bear." CONCLUSIONS: Three of the women were able to articulate some perceived benefit arising from ECT, although these women also acknowledged the benefits did not last more than two weeks. The majority of women complained of significant and persistent autobiographical memory loss, cognitive deficits, and fear of the procedure.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".