Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40813058›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2026

A large exploratory survey of electroconvulsive therapy recipients, family members and friends: what information do they recall being given?

John Read, Christopher Harrop, Lisa Morrison, Sarah Price Hancock, Lucy Johnstone, Sue Cunliffe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Survey of 1144 ECT Recipients, Family Members and Friends: Does ECT Work?International journal of mental health nursing · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

John ReadSchool of Psychology and Human Development, University of East London, London, UK j.read2@uel.ac.uk.
Christopher HarropClinical Psychologist, Independent Researcher, Woking, UK.
Lisa MorrisonIndependent Researcher, ECT Recipient, Belfast, UK.
Sarah Price HancockIonic Injury Foundation; ECT Recipient, San Diego, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3912-4284
Lucy JohnstoneConsultant Clinical Psychologist, Bristol, UK.
Sue CunliffeIndependent Researcher, Brain Injury Survivor, ECT Recipient, Worcester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The right to informed consent is a core ethical principle. Recent audits of patient information leaflets about electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), in Australia, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, suggest that this principle is often not implemented, with efficacy being exaggerated and risks minimised. In the current study a convenience sample of 858 ECT recipients and 286 family members and friends, from 44 countries, responded to an online survey about their experiences of ECT, including the information they recall being given to them before ECT. Most (59%) of the ECT recipients reported that they had not been given 'adequate information' and a further 17% were 'not sure'. For example, 63% of recipients recall being told that 'ECT can cause temporary memory problems', but only 17% that 'ECT can cause long-term or permanent memory problems, 12% that 'ECT can cause heart problems' and 28% that there are 'Risks from repeated general anaesthesia'. There were higher levels of recalling being told about definite benefits, even though some of these benefits are disputed. When asked to consider a list of items of misinformation, many recipients and relatives reported being told 'Depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain' (58% and 53%, respectively) and 'ECT corrects chemical imbalance or other brain abnormality' (42% and 41%). Study limitations include potential sampling issues (eg, self-selection bias, snowball sampling bias, or other barriers to representativeness due to convenience sampling or network-based recruitment), as well as potential recall bias among survey respondents (last ECT treatment was between 1958 and 2024; average=2012.5). Nevertheless, these findings, in conjunction with previous studies, suggest an urgent need for greater efforts to ensure that patients and families are provided with comprehensive, balanced, evidence-based information when deciding whether to have ECT.

Indexed as

Electroconvulsive TherapyFamilyFriendsInformed ConsentMental RecallAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesElectric StimulationEthics- MedicalPsychiatryQuality of Health CareSuicide

Identifiers

PMID40813058
PMCPMC12911569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.