Electroconvulsive therapy for depression

Leiknes, Kari Ann; Berg, Rigmor C.; Smedslund, Geir; Schweder, Lindy Jarosch-von; Øverland, Simon; Hammerstrøm, Karianne Thune; Høie, Bjørg

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009105

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the distribution of ECT has improved radically since its introduction in 1938 (Fink, ; Payne & Prudic, ), ECT remains one of the most controversial, misunderstood psychiatric treatments available (Aoki et al., ; Maguire et al., ). The efficacy and safety of ECT on a short‐term basis is well documented when given to patients, for whom it is clearly indicated (UK ECT Review Group, ; Leiknes Kari et al., ). In several cases, ECT has proved more tolerable than classical antidepressants when taking side effects into consideration (Payne & Prudic, ), and positive patient accounts of ECT, mainly from questionnaire studies, exist (Knight, Ridge, McShane, Ryan, & Griffith, ; Maguire et al., ; Myers, ; Sienaert, De Becker, Vansteelandt, Demyttenaere, & Peuskens, ; Videbech & Honore, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perspectives of former recipients and experts on stigmatization related to electroconvulsive therapy in Denmark: A focus group study

Kring

Bergholt

Midtgaard

2018

Psychiatric Ment Health Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has existed worldwide for nearly 80 years. ECT is a fast-working and potentially life-saving treatment, but it is considered controversial. Although frequently mentioned, stigmatization in relation to ECT has not been systematically explored so far. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This paper provides new insight into both recipient and expert perspectives on ECT. It identifies several issues of stigmatization related to ECT and suggests that full recovery following ECT might be jeopardized due to both stigmatization and self-stigmatization. The study suggests that most of the stigmatizing behaviors can be ascribed to (a lack of) available knowledge of and experience with ECT. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Being aware of and listening to the needs of former ECT-recipients seems essential to increase their treatment options and support care as well as a will to prioritize this patient group. For example, by addressing the potential stigma issues in follow-up groups and helping to distribute sober, factual information about ECT in society. Providing written information and psychoeducation for patients and relatives before, during, and after ECT, in addition to supporting active use of diaries, might be valuable remedies for helping patients feel adequately informed and able to accept the pros and cons of ECT during and after treatment period. ABSTRACT: Introduction Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has existed worldwide for nearly 80 years. Although fast-working and potentially life-saving treatment, ECT is regarded as a strongly controversial treatment and stigmatization is frequently mentioned in relation to it. However, no systematic research in this area has taken place so far. Aim The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences and attitudes of former recipients of ECT and of experts professionally involved with ECT to identify potential stigmatization. Method Two focus groups, one comprising four recipients of ECT and the other seven professional experts, were conducted. Data from each focus group were analyzed separately using a framework-analysis. Results The analysis yielded three major themes for the first focus group interview: ambivalent attitudes, discrediting and exclusion, and survival strategies and three major themes for the second focus group interview: dramatic depictions of ECT, an overlooked and rare treatment, and anti-stigmatization strategies. Discussion and implications for practice Stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors in relation to ECT are closely related to one's personal and factual knowledge, and there is a great need for multi-facetted approaches if social acceptance and recognition are to be achieved. This study provides new knowledge on a scarcely examined area while also introducing suitable methods for anti-stigmatization and empowerment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perspectives of former recipients and experts on stigmatization related to electroconvulsive therapy in Denmark: A focus group study

Kring

Bergholt

Midtgaard

2018

Psychiatric Ment Health Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are also a number of ongoing reviews registered through the Campbell, and Cochrane Collaborations also adopt a similar approach, including a review on interventions to prevent female genital mutilation and a review of the impact of farmer field schools in low-and middle-income countries (Denison et al 2011, Leiknes et al 2011, Lins et al 2011, Ryan et al 2011, Waddington et al 2011. Within the area of international development an ongoing review of the evidence on the impact of farmer field schools in lowand middle-income countries (Waddington et al 2011) aims to assess the barriers and facilitators of intervention effectiveness and sustainability by including a broader range of evidence in a second review component.…”

Section: Effectiveness Plus With Parallel Review Modulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

Snilstveit

2012

Journal of Development Effectiveness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance Birte SnilstveitTo cite this article: Birte Snilstveit (2012) Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4:3, 388-408, DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2012 Theory-based systematic reviews, which summarise evidence on what works, when and why, strive for greater policy relevance. Reviews that answer these questions adopt a mixed methods approach and draw on a range of study types. Answering the 'what works' and 'what doesn't' questions means drawing on effectiveness studies, conducted to standards of high-quality impact evaluation. But in formulating answers to the 'when' and 'why' questions requires a broader range of evidence from both quantitative and qualitative research. Based on a review of the methodological literature in this field and the experience of 3ie's systematic reviews program, this article provides an outline of how a theory-based approach to systematic reviews, including appropriate quantitative and qualitative evidence, can be operationalised. We propose an approach based on three principles: (1) develop a program theory for the intervention; (2) adopt a mixed methods approach and include a broader range of evidence; and (3) maintain the rigour and transparency that characterise systematic reviews. The approach translates into two broad options. Effectiveness plus reviews focus on providing a detailed causal chain analysis by drawing on a program theory and additional data collection on context and intervention implementation. And effectiveness plus with a parallel review component, which is designed to answer specific research questions related to effectiveness, adopts separate inclusion criteria, reflecting the type of studies appropriate for answering those questions.

show abstract

“…Oversikter med kvalitativ forskning fremmes gjennom flere internasjonale organisasjoner. Cochranesamarbeidet har relativt nylig åpnet for å gi plass til kvalitativ forskning i sine systematiske oversikter, og for øyeblikket er en håndfull Cochrane-oversikter med kvalitativ evidens under utarbeidelse (se (28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33) Enkelte forskere ved Kunnskapssenteret har erfaring i utarbeidelse av oversikter med kvalitativ forskning (f.eks. (41-46)), utvikling av en sjekkliste for oversikter med kvalitativ forskning (47) og et system for å vurdere påliteligheten til kunnskapsgrunnlaget for hvert enkelt funn i oversikter med kvalitativ forskning (kalt CerQual, se (29,45)).…”

Section: Aktører Og Produsenter Av Over-sikter Med Kvalitativ Forskningunclassified

Systematiske oversikter og kvalitativ forskning

Berg¹,

Munthe‐Kaas²

2013

Nor J Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interessen for å samle og syntetisere kvalitative studier i systematiske oversikter er voksende. Det pekes blant annet på at sammenstillinger av kvalitativ forskning har stor verdi når det gjelder potensialet til å informere politikk og praksis. Systematiske oversikter om effekt gir innsikt i hvorvidt et tiltak virker; systematiske oversikter med kvalitativ forskning gir innsikt i hvordan og hvorfor eventuelle virkninger oppstår. Nytten av denne type oversikter erkjennes nå bl.a. av internasjonale organisasjoner som Cochrane og Campbell-samarbeidene. I Cochrane-håndboka vises det til at kvalitativ forskning kan bidra med nyttig informasjon på flere måter: Kvalitative datasett kan informere, styrke, utvide og supplere systematiske oversikter om effekt av tiltak. Metodene for gjennomføring av oversikter med kvalitativ forskning er i rask utvikling, og det fins for øyeblikket ingen standard tilnærming. Når det gjelder søk etter kvalitative studier må disse ofte være bredere, men forøvrig gjelder mange av de samme prinsippene som for litteratursøk innen systematiske oversikter om effekt av tiltak. Det forskes på og debatteres om hva slags kriterier som bør benyttes i utvelgelsen av kvalitative studier og hvorvidt man skal ekskludere studier basert på metodologisk kvalitet. Det fins flere ulike måter å syntetisere resultater fra kvalitative studier på, og det er også mulig å sammenstille resultater fra både kvalitative og kvantitative studier i én analyse. De mest hyppig brukte metodene er metaetnografi og tematisk analyse.Berg RC, Munthe-Kaas H. Systematic reviews in qualitative research. Nor J Epidemiol 2013; 23 (2): 131-139.ENGLISH SUMMARYThere is growing interest in summarising and synthesising qualitative research in systematic reviews. Among other things, this indicates an increasing appreciation for the potential role of qualitative evidence in informing policy and practice. While systematic reviews of effect studies can establish whether an intervention works, systematic reviews of qualitative research can offer insights into the “how” and “why” of potential effects. The importance of such questions, and the value of systematic reviews of qualitative research, is now recognized by a number of international organizations, including the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. The Cochrane Handbook describes four ways in which qualitative research can contribute to evidence-based practice, namely by informing, enhancing, extending, and supplementing systematic reviews of the effect of interventions. The methodology for conducting reviews of qualitative research is rapidly developing, and at present there is no standard approach. Systematic searches for qualitative research are often more broadly cast but otherwise follow many of the same principles of a literature search within a systematic review of effect. There are ongoing debates and research regarding criteria for inclusion of studies in general, and whether to include studies of low methodological quality in particular. An array of methods to synthesise qualitative evidence exists, and such evidence may also be synthesised together with quantitative evidence. Meta-ethnography and thematic analysis are the most commonly used synthesis methods.

show abstract

Electroconvulsive therapy for depression

Cited by 5 publications

References 73 publications

The perspectives of former recipients and experts on stigmatization related to electroconvulsive therapy in Denmark: A focus group study

The perspectives of former recipients and experts on stigmatization related to electroconvulsive therapy in Denmark: A focus group study

Systematic reviews: from ‘bare bones’ reviews to policy relevance

Systematiske oversikter og kvalitativ forskning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About