Cited by 27Electroconvulsive Therapy StudiesHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsSchizophrenia research and treatment

Outcomes in patients with and without capacity in electroconvulsive therapy

Tor, Phern-Chern, Tan, FAMS. June Su, Martin, Donel, Loo, Colleen·2020·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for severe mental illness but access is limited for patients lacking consent capacity. We aimed to compare the symptomatic, cognitive, quality of life (QOL) and functional outcomes of patients with and without capacity receiving ECT for schizophrenia, depression or mania.Methods Patients prescribed ECT in a single center had their clinical outcomes pre and post ECT compared with repeated measures ANOVAs. Differences in demographic, clinical characteristics and ECT treatment between the group lacking and having capacity were examined using independent t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables.Results 75.1% of 175 patients lacked capacity. The group lacking capacity had overall poorer cognitive and global functioning pre ECT but higher QOL. Objective psychiatric symptom ratings after ECT improved similarly between groups. Mood, cognition, QOL and function improved in both groups, with more improvement in mood and function in the group lacking capacity and a trend towards greater cognitive improvement (p = 0.051).Limitations Subgroup analysis by diagnosis was not done due to smaller sample sizes in each group. Cognition was assessed with a general screening instrument not a full neuropsychological assessment.Conclusions ECT is a safe and effective treatment for schizophrenia, bipolar mania and depression, and may provide similar or greater benefits in patients lacking capacity to consent, compared to those with capacity. These results support the provision of a framework for substitute decision making in the patients' best interests for ECT in patients unable to provide their own consent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.150

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tor, P.-C., Tan, F. J. S., Martin, D., & Loo, C.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Mental Health (SG)
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Tor, Phern-Chern
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
266
Pages
151-157
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3002324017
Cited by
27
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
electroconvulsive therapy, decision-making capacity, informed consent, substitute decision-making, schizophrenia, bipolar mania, depression, cognitive outcomes, quality of life, functional outcome, psychiatric symptoms
MeSH terms
Cognition, Electroconvulsive Therapy, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Quality of Life, Schizophrenia, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review