Cited by 104Electroconvulsive Therapy StudiesHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsEthics and bioethics in healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Information, consent and perceived coercion: patients' perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy

Open access
Rose, Dana S., Wykes, Til H., Bindman, Jonathan P., Fleischmann, Pete S.·2005·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a procedure that attracts special safeguards under common law for voluntary patients and under both current and proposed mental health legislation, for those receiving compulsory treatment. Aims: To review patients' views on issues of information, consent and perceived coercion. Method: Seventeen papers and reports were identified that dealt with patients' views on information and consent in relation to ECT; 134 ‘testimonies' or first-hand accounts were identified. The papers and reports were subjected to a descriptive systematic review. The testimony data were analysed qualitatively. Results: Approximately half the patients reported that they had received sufficient information about ECT and side-effects. Approximately a third did not feel they had freely consented to ECTeven when they had signed a consent form. Clinician-led research evaluates these findings to mean that patients trust their doctors, whereas user-led work evaluates similar findings as showing inadequacies in informed consent. Conclusion: Neither current nor proposed safeguards for patients are sufficient to ensure informed consent with respect to ECT, at least in England and Wales.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.186.1.54

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 1999, Questionnaire Results to March'99
  2. 1999, Report of the Expert Committee
  3. 2002, Draft Mental Health Bill
  4. 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)63993-1 · DOI
  5. Pedler, 2000, Shock Treatment: A Survey of Peoples Experience of Electro–Convulsive Therapy (ECT)
  6. 1995, ECT Survey: The National Experience

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rose, D. S., Wykes, T. H., Bindman, J. P., & Fleischmann, P. S.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Rose, Dana S.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2005-01
Volume
186
Issue
1
Pages
54-59
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2114874120
Cited by
102
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 18
FWCI
0.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
electroconvulsive therapy, informed consent, perceived coercion, patient perspectives, patient information, involuntary treatment, mental health law, patient testimony
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Electroconvulsive Therapy, England, Humans, Informed Consent, Patient Education as Topic, Wales

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