A Survey of <scp>ECT</scp> Recipients, Family Members and Friends: Are the Self‐Reported Reasons for The Recipients' Problems Being Addressed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroconvulsive therapy is administered, internationally, to approximately a million people annually. This study aimed to collect the self-reported factors contributing to the problems for which ECT is prescribed and assess how well mental health services addressed those factors. An online survey was responded to by 858 ECT recipients and 286 family members and friends, from 44 countries. The majority (84%) of ECT recipients reported childhood adversities and, of those, 78% believed those adversities had contributed to the problems for which ECT was prescribed. Only 32% reported that mental health services had asked about their childhood adversities, and 30% that their adversities had been 'therapeutically addressed'. 81% of ECT recipients reported at least one of 11 recent stressors. Of these, 67% believed their stressors had contributed to their problems. 34% reported being asked about their stressors and 21% felt that the stressors had been 'therapeutically addressed'. Mental health professionals, including nurses, should ensure that patients are asked about the life events and circumstances they believe contributed to the difficulties for which ECT is being considered, and offered some help with them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".