ArticlePsychology and psychotherapy2026
An international survey of the relatives and friends of electroconvulsive therapy recipients.
Article in Psychology and psychotherapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A large exploratory survey of electroconvulsive therapy recipients, family members and friends: what information do they recall being given?Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to address the paucity of studies of the relatives and friends of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) patients.
methodsA total of 1144 people responded to an online survey.
resultsThe respondents included 286 relatives and friends of ECT recipients, from 22 countries. 45% reported improvement in the problem for which ECT was prescribed, and 42% said it made the problem worse. 61% thought ECT had made 'overall quality of life' worse and 32% reported improvement. On three measures of memory, between 51% and 73% reported memory loss in their relative or friend (mostly lasting at least 3 years), and 8%-11% reported memory improvement. Twenty one of 25 other adverse effects from ECT were reported by 50% or more of the relatives/friends, including: Difficulty concentrating (79%), Fatigue (73%), Emotional blunting (73%), Loss of independence (72%) and Relationship problems (70%). 34% believed ECT had caused brain damage. When asked, 'Would you want to have ECT yourself, if a psychiatrist thought you needed it?' 72% said no. Two open questions, about impact on the patient and on the relative/friend, both elicited about three times as many negative impacts as positive ones.
conclusionsThe responses of the relatives/friends are broadly similar to ECT recipients' responses to the same survey, reported elsewhere, which tends to support the accuracy of the ECT recipients' responses. ECT recipients and their families need a more detailed and accurate picture of possible benefits and harms if they are to give fully informed consent.
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.