ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2018
What is the process by which a decision to administer electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) or not is made? A grounded theory informed study of the multi-disciplinary professionals involved.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electroconvulsive therapy improves distal colonic motility via the subdiaphragmatic vagus nerve in depressive-like mice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A prediction model for electroconvulsive therapy effectiveness in patients with major depressive disorder from the Dutch ECT Consortium (DEC).Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
- Electroconvulsive Therapy in Psychiatric Disorders: A Narrative Review Exploring Neuroendocrine-Immune Therapeutic Mechanisms and Clinical Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop a grounded theory-informed model explaining the decision-making process professionals in multi-disciplinary teams go through in deciding whether to administer electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) or not.
methodsA grounded theory informed methodology was used to analyse the data offered by ten participants who had all been involved in the process of deciding if someone has ECT or not.
resultsThe core categories, described as 'layers' in this research, 'personal and professional identity'; 'subjective vs objective'; 'Guidelines or Clinical Instinct?'; 'Someone has to take Responsibility' and 'the decision in action', were constructed from the data.
conclusionsThe study describes a useful insight into the layers of the decision-making process that could be further considered in clinical settings. The model highlights the decision to give ECT that has many different layers including professional identity, how a person understands the evidence base, past experiences, and the amount of power they have in the process. The consultant psychiatrist and the patient were seen as holding most power in the process depending on whether the Mental Capacity Act (2005) or Mental Health Act (2007) was being followed. Patients were seen to experience a very different decision-making process dependant on the personal views of the professionals in relation to ECT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.