Provision of electroconvulsive therapy during the covid-19 pandemic: A survey among clinics in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a marked impact on psychiatry. Capacity reductions also affected electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), even though ECT is an essential rather than an elective procedure. We sent a survey to all 197 clinics in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland with an ECT service between March and May 2021 to provide an overview of the changes made to ECT services in these countries during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than a quarter of the clinics (27.0%) reported a temporary suspension of all ECT treatments, and 28.2% of the clinics reported reductions of up to 75%. Maintenance ECT was suspended in 46.7% of the clinics and reduced by up to 75% in 30.6% of the clinics. At the time of the survey, 40.8% of the clinics still reported lower numbers of ECT treatments compared with the prepandemic situation. Reasons for the reduced number of ECT treatments included patient safety and testing measures, personnel shortages in the anesthesiology departments, and limited availability of rooms. The COVID-19 pandemic had and continues to have a marked negative impact on the provision of ECT in clinics in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. To avoid negative consequences for patients, ECT clinics should urgently take steps to provide ECT services without disruptions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it