↓ Skip to main content

Electroconvulsive therapy, the placebo effect and informed consent

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ethics, October 2012
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Electroconvulsive therapy, the placebo effect and informed consent
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, October 2012
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2012-100955
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte Rosalind Blease

Abstract

Major depressive disorder is not only the most widespread mental disorder in the world, it is a disorder on the rise. In cases of particularly severe forms of depression, when all other treatment options have failed, the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a recommended treatment option for patients. ECT has been in use in psychiatric practice for over 70 years and is now undergoing something of a restricted renaissance following a sharp decline in its use in the 1970s. Despite its success in treating severe depression there is continued debate as to the effectiveness of ECT: in some studies, it is argued that ECT is marginally more effective than sham ECT. In addition, there is still no clear explanation of how ECT works; among the range of hypotheses proposed it is claimed that ECT may work by harnessing placebo effects. In light of the uncertainties over the mechanism of action of ECT and given the risk of serious side effects that ECT may produce, I contend that the process of informed consent must include comprehensive accounts of these uncertainties. I examine the possible consequences of providing adequate information to potential ECT patients, including the consideration that ECT may still prove to be effective even if physicians are open about the possibility of it working as a placebo. I conclude that if we value patient autonomy as well as the professional reputation of medical practitioners, a fuller description of ECT must be provided to patients and their carers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Postgraduate 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 34%
Psychology 19 22%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Philosophy 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 18 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,988,057
of 25,464,544 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#717
of 3,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,187
of 191,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#7
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,464,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 191,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.