Patient-level Characteristics and Inequitable Access to Inpatient Electroconvulsive Therapy for Depression: A Population-based Cross-sectional Study: Caractéristiques au niveau du patient et accès inéquitable à la thérapie électroconvulsive pour patients hospitalisés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A variety of patient characteristics drive the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in depression. However, the extent to which each characteristic influences the receipt of ECT, and whether they are appropriate, is unknown. The aim of this study is to identify patient-level characteristics associated with receiving inpatient ECT for depression. METHOD: We identified all psychiatric inpatients with a major depressive episode admitted to hospital ≥3 days in Ontario, Canada (2009 to 2017). The association between patient-level characteristics at admission and receipt of inpatient ECT was determined using logistic regression, where a generalized estimating equations approach accounted for repeat admissions. RESULTS: The cohort included 53,174 inpatients experiencing 75,429 admissions, with 6,899 admissions involving ECT (9.2%). Among demographic factors, age was most associated with ECT-younger adults had reduced (OR = 0.30, 95%CI, 0.24 to 0.37; 18 to 25 years) while older adults had increased (OR = 3.08, 95%CI, 2.41 to 3.93; 85+ years) odds compared to middle-aged adults (46 to 55 years). The likelihood of ECT was greater for individuals who were married/partnered, had postsecondary education, and resided in the highest neighborhood income quintile. Among clinical factors, illness polarity was most associated with receiving ECT-bipolar depression had reduced odds of receiving ECT (OR = 0.62, 95%CI, 0.57 to 0.69) The likelihood of receiving ECT was greater in psychotic depression, more depressive symptoms, and incapable to consent to treatment and was reduced with comorbid substance use disorders and several medical comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 10 admissions for depression in Ontario, Canada, involve ECT. Many clinical factors associated with receiving inpatient ECT were concordant with clinical guidelines; however, nonclinical factors associated with its use warrant investigation of their impact on equitable access to ECT.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".