Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for major depressive disorder, but some aspects remain controversial. Few studies have taken an in-depth mixed methods approach toward the study of attitudes, and there are no significant studies that explore the change of attitudes before and after treatment. The aim was to compare attitudes of patients and their relatives before and after ECT using quantitative and qualitative methods. METHODS: One hundred twenty-three participants were recruited. Forty-one patient/relative participants were recruited from 2 accredited ECT centers along with 82 age- and sex-matched general population controls. A validated 22-item survey about attitudes toward ECT was administered. Patient/relative participants completed the survey before treatment with ECT and engaged in a repeat survey and a semistructured interview 1 month after completion of ECT. Control participants completed the survey on a single occasion. RESULTS: Control versus pre-ECT surveys and pre-ECT versus post-ECT surveys both demonstrated statistically and clinically significant positive attitudinal differences (Cohen d = 1.37, P < 0.001; Cohen d = 1.2, P < 0.001). These differences were maintained for both the patient and relative pre/post subgroups (Cohen d = 1.15, P < 0.001; Cohen d = 1.33, P < 0.001). Qualitative analysis identified 13 attitudinal transitions in cognition, emotion, and imagery domains. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine a change in attitudes toward ECT of patients, their relatives, and with controls using mixed methods. The findings suggest a 2-phase positive attitudinal change, in which accurate information (phase 1) and experiential learning (phase 2) are both key components. These findings address stigma through accurate knowledge and experiential learning, with a positive outcome through changed attitudes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.022 |
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".