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

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
John Read, Christopher Harrop, Lisa Morrison, Sarah Price Hancock, Lucy Johnstone, Sue Cunliffe
{"title":"A large exploratory survey of electroconvulsive therapy recipients, family members and friends: what information do they recall being given?","authors":"John Read, Christopher Harrop, Lisa Morrison, Sarah Price Hancock, Lucy Johnstone, Sue Cunliffe","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110629","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

一项针对电休克疗法接受者、家庭成员和朋友的大型探索性调查:他们记得被告知的信息是什么?
知情同意权是一项核心伦理原则。最近对澳大利亚、英格兰、北爱尔兰、苏格兰和威尔士有关电痉挛疗法(ECT)的患者信息传单的审计表明,这一原则往往没有得到实施,疗效被夸大,风险被最小化。在目前的研究中,来自44个国家的858名ECT接受者和286名家庭成员和朋友参与了一项关于他们ECT经历的在线调查,包括他们回忆起在ECT之前被告知的信息。大多数(59%)的ECT接受者报告说他们没有得到“足够的信息”,另有17%的人“不确定”。例如,63%的接受者回忆说,他们被告知“电痉挛疗法会导致暂时的记忆问题”,但只有17%的人被告知“电痉挛疗法会导致长期或永久的记忆问题”,12%的人被告知“电痉挛疗法会导致心脏问题”,28%的人被告知“反复全身麻醉有风险”。当被告知确切的好处时,回忆的水平更高,尽管其中一些好处是有争议的。当被要求考虑一系列错误信息时,许多收件人和亲属报告说,他们被告知“抑郁症是由大脑中的化学失衡引起的”(分别为58%和53%)和“ECT纠正化学失衡或其他大脑异常”(分别为42%和41%)。研究的局限性包括潜在的抽样问题(例如,自我选择偏差,滚雪球抽样偏差,或由于方便抽样或基于网络的招募而导致的其他代表性障碍),以及调查对象中潜在的回忆偏差(最后一次ECT治疗是在1958年至2024年之间;平均= 2012.5)。然而,这些发现,结合之前的研究,表明迫切需要做出更大的努力,以确保在决定是否接受电痉挛治疗时,向患者和家属提供全面、平衡、基于证据的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信