How Do People Perceive and Adapt to Any Consequences of Electro Convulsive Therapy on Their Daily Lives?

The ethical imperative of trauma-sensitive care for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)

BACKGROUND

The empirical literature on the lived experience of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is limited, divergent, and largely focused on the experiences of procedures, (adverse) effects, information provision, or decision-making.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate aspects related to the lived experience and meaning-making of people who have had ECT.

METHOD

In-depth interviews with 21 women (21-65 years old) were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA).

FINDINGS

A subgroup of nine participants described more negative experiences with ECT. A common factor for these participants was the experience of trauma that remained under-treated. The superordinate themes identified were a lack of trauma-based and recovery-oriented treatment. The rest of the sample (12) expressed more positive experiences with ECT.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that exploring more broadly the impacts of ECT at the long term offers insights that can help design more person-centered services aligned to the needs of the treatment recipients. Educational modules for mental health care staff should include, besides knowledge on the methods' effectiveness, additional evidence about treatment recipients' subjective concerns and the relevance of trauma and recovery-oriented care models.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Those Supported in the Community with Long-Term Mental Health Problems: A Qualitative Analysis of Power, Threat, Meaning and Survival

Research suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on those already living with mental health problems, though there is also evidence of resilience. However, to date there has been limited in-depth qualitative investigation. We interviewed 15 people living with long-term mental health problems who, before the pandemic, were being supported by third sector organisations, to explore how they experienced lockdowns and accessing services remotely. Template analysis was informed by the Power Threat Meaning Framework and suggested that participants experienced significant threats to their mental wellbeing and recovery which were exacerbated by current or previous powerlessness and inequality. Although participants described positive coping strategies, several described a return of unhelpful behaviours that had contributed to the original difficulties. The findings illustrate the wider contributions of social and economic context to mental health problems and the importance of ensuring that people do not feel abandoned and are proactively supported.

Depression: why drugs and electricity are not the answer

The dominant view within mental health services and research suggests that feeling depressed is a kind of medical illness, partially caused by various biological deficits which are somehow corrected by physical interventions. This article critically appraises evidence for the effectiveness and value of antidepressant drugs and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), the two principle physical treatments recommended for depression. It also describes the negative effects of these interventions and raises concerns about how they impact the brain. We propose an alternative understanding that recognises depression as an emotional and meaningful response to unwanted life events and circumstances. This perspective demands that we address the social conditions that make depression likely and suggests that a combination of politics and common sense needs to guide us in providing help for one another when we are suffering in this way. This alternative view is increasingly endorsed around the world, including by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and service users who have suffered negative consequences of physical treatments that modify brain functions in ways that are not well-understood.

A response to yet another defence of ECT in the absence of robust efficacy and safety evidence

It is estimated that electroconvulsive therapy is still administered to approximately a million people a year. It involves passing enough electric current through the human brain, eight to twelve times, to cause convulsions, in the hope of somehow alleviating emotional suffering, primarily depression. There have only ever been 11 placebo-controlled studies (where general anaesthesia is administered but the electric shock is withheld), all of which were pre-1986, had very small sample sizes and were seriously methodologically flawed. Five of these studies found no difference between the two groups at the end of treatment, four found ECT produced better outcomes for some patients, and two produced mixed results, including one where psychiatrists' ratings produced a difference, but the ratings of nurses and patients did not. In the 80 years since the first ECT no studies have found any evidence that ECT is better than placebo beyond the end of treatment. Nevertheless, all five meta-analyses relying on these studies have somehow concluded that ECT is more effective than placebo despite the studies' multiple failings. Meanwhile, evidence of persistent or permanent memory loss in 12% to 55% of patients has accumulated. Attempts to highlight this failure of ECT proponents to provide robust evidence that their treatment is effective and safe are routinely dismissed, diminished, denied and denounced. This paper responds to one such attempt, by Drs Meechan, Laws, Young, McLoughlin and Jauhar, to discredit two systematic reviews of the eleven pre-1986 studies, in 2010 and 2019, the latter of which also reviewed five meta-analyses that had ignored the studies' failings. The criticisms and claims of the recent crtiique of the two systematic reviews are examined in detail, by the first author of both reviews, for accuracy, relevance and logic. The critique is found to include multiple errors, misrepresentations, omissions, inconsistencies and logical flaws. It is concluded that Meechan et al. fail to make a fact-based, coherent argument against suspending ECT pending a series of large, carefully designed placebo-controlled studies to establish whether ECT does have any beneficial effects against which to weigh the significant established adverse effects.