ArticleIndian journal of psychiatry2025
A decade of electroconvulsive therapy for minors under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: Quo Vadimus.
Article in Indian journal of psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite its proven safety and effectiveness, Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) is seldom utilized in children and adolescents with severe mental illnesses. Using two clinical case scenarios, we aim to illustrate the influence of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA 2017), on ECT among children and adolescents in India. Either case required emergency ECT per clinical protocols, but access was denied due to MHCA 2017 restrictions-specifically, the requirement for prior approval from the Mental Health Review Board (MHRB). Data was obtained from clinical records, treating psychiatrists, and legal documentation. MHCA 2017's Section 95 prohibits unmodified ECT and restricts ECT in minors unless guardian consent and MHRB approval are obtained. These provisions resulted in impediment of treatment in our cases, leading to clinical deterioration, prolonged suffering, and heightened morbidity risk. While MHCA 2017 aims to protect patient rights, its rigid, regulatory structure regarding ECT in minors may inadvertently obstruct life-saving treatment in critical cases. These barriers prolong illness, increase risk, and reduce access to effective intervention. Reevaluation of current regulations is urgently needed to ensure a balanced framework that safeguards rights without compromising timely care.
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.