↓ Skip to main content

Decision making and support available to individuals considering and undertaking electroconvulsive therapy (ECT): a qualitative, consumer-led study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision making and support available to individuals considering and undertaking electroconvulsive therapy (ECT): a qualitative, consumer-led study
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1813-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Wells, Justin Newton Scanlan, Lisa Gomez, Scott Rutter, Nicola Hancock, Anthony Tuite, Joanna Ho, Sarah Jacek, Andrew Jones, Hassan Mehdi, Megan Still, Graeme Halliday

Abstract

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is one of the most controversial treatments in psychiatry. This controversy and diverse and often strongly held opinions can make decision making processes around ECT more complex. This consumer-led project explored the experiences of individuals who had received ECT in terms of the information they received, their experience of ECT and suggestions for ways that decision making processes and experiences of ECT can be improved. Interviews were conducted by consumer researchers who had also received ECT and transcripts were analysed using constant comparative techniques. Seventeen individuals participated. Four overarching categories were identified from participant interviews: Information matters; Preparation and decisions before ECT; Experience of ECT; and Suggestions for improvement. Most participants suggested that more information was required and that this information should be made available more regularly to support decision making. Additional suggestions included greater involvement of family and friends (including having a family member or friend present during the ECT procedure), opportunities to gain information from individuals who had received ECT and more support for managing memory and cognitive side effects. This study provides valuable consumer-provided insights and recommendations for psychiatrists and mental health clinicians working within ECT clinics and with consumers considering or preparing for ECT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Postgraduate 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,999,688
of 15,922,938 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#791
of 3,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,586
of 279,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them