Ease of Use of the Electroconvulsive Therapy App by Its Users: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is one of the oldest, most effective, and potentially life-saving noninvasive brain stimulation treatments for psychiatric illnesses such as severe depression, mania, and catatonia. The decision-making process to use ECT involves well-informed discussion between the clinician and the client. A platform, like an app, which provides this information in an easy-to-understand format may be of benefit to various stakeholders in making an informed decision. Apps developed by clinicians/hospitals taking into consideration user perspectives will filter and provide trustworthy information to the users. In this regard, the ECT app, an app which is freely available for download at the Apple Store, was developed by the Leicestershire Partnership National Health Service (NHS) Trust and Leicestershire Health Informatics Service (LHIS). Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate and demonstrate the accessibility of the ECT app to the chosen audiences it was created for, via a paper and electronic questionnaire. Methods A survey was conducted between January 2017 and March 2019. A survey questionnaire designed for the study was sent to mental health professionals, medical students, patients, carers, and members of the public via post, email, and SurveyMonkey or informed via posts shared in Psychiatry online groups and face-to-face contact. All participants who were willing to participate in the study were included. Results Results were collected via paper forms, email responses, and SurveyMonkey and all were inputted into SurveyMonkey to facilitate analysis. A total of 20 responses were received during the study period (January 2017 to March 2019). The participants of the survey, which included a mixed group of professionals (12/20, 60%), patients (3/20, 15%), and carers (1/20, 5%), opined that the app was easy to download (14/20, 70%) and use (9/20, 45%); contained adequate information (19/20, 95%); they felt more informed after having used the app (9/20, 45%); and they would recommend it to others (19/20, 95%). The participants of the survey also provided suggestions on the app (10/20, 50%). Conclusions The ECT app can be beneficial in sharing appropriate information to professionals and the public alike and help in gathering unbiased and nonjudgmental information on the current use of ECT as a treatment option.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".