The perception of Romanian mental health professionals on electroconvulsive therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The journey for the electroconvulsive therapy began in 1938, when convulsive seizures induced by electrical stimulus were used, for the first time, in the therapy of patients diagnosed with Schizophrenia. Over the time, this therapy remains an important one, due to its applicability and necessity in the therapeutic management of patients with psychiatric pathology. Objectives Electroconvulsive therapy has evolved as a technique, nowadays being applied under induced intravenous anesthesia with the administration of oxygen on the mask, and from 2001, the sinus electrical stimulus has been replaced by the one in the form of a short pulse, upon the recommendation of professional organizations, in order to increase its therapeutic effectiveness. However, this form of therapy continues to be stigmatized, largely due to the way it is presented in the mass media. The objective of this work was to analyze how mental health professionals perceive electroconvulsive therapy. Methods We conducted a study in which we used a questionnaire applied to the Romanian professionals in the field of mental health. Results The results were analyzed in accordance with the objective of the study. Conclusions Through this analysis we wanted to understand how electroconvulsive therapy is seen through the eyes of mental health professionals and to identify those aspects that can help us in carrying out information programs, with a major impact on mental health, in order to reduce stigma forasmuch the therapeutic benefits of electroconvulsive therapy outweigh the possible risks. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".