The extensive study enlisted 286 participants from 22 countries, all of whom had firsthand experience observing the consequences of ECT on their loved ones. The results paint a complex picture: while 45% of respondents acknowledged some clinical improvement in the symptoms that led to ECT administration, a striking 42% reported a worsening of these very issues. This divide underscores the variability in patient outcomes and calls into question assumptions of guaranteed efficacy conveyed during treatment consent procedures.

Quality of life assessments provided one of the study’s most compelling revelations. A majority of 61% of relatives and friends perceived a deterioration in overall quality of life following ECT treatment, in stark contrast to only 32% who observed any improvement. This effect transcends mere symptom relief, suggesting widespread disruptions to functionality, personal autonomy, and emotional wellbeing that are often underreported or insufficiently quantified in clinical studies.

Cognitive impairments emerged as a profound cause for concern. Most respondents observed significant memory deficits in their ECT-treated relatives, frequently persisting beyond three years. Such prolonged amnestic syndromes challenge the clinical rhetoric minimizing cognitive side effects, especially given that memory loss is sometimes dismissed as a confounding effect of the underlying psychiatric disorder rather than a treatment sequela.

Beyond memory, the survey identified an array of additional adverse effects commonly endured by patients post-ECT. More than half of those surveyed reported their loved ones suffering from concentration difficulties, persistent fatigue, emotional blunting, diminished independence, and strained interpersonal relationships. These symptoms collectively elucidate the multi-dimensional impact of ECT that extends well beyond the neurochemical domain targeted by the intervention.

An ethically charged question posed to the relatives and friends encapsulated their overall stance: “Would you want to have ECT yourself if a psychiatrist recommended it?” The answer was a resounding “no” from 72% of participants. This personal aversion mirrors the growing skepticism emerging from this broader, non-clinical cohort directly affected by ECT outcomes.

Juxtaposing these findings with self-reported experiences from ECT recipients themselves, as documented in previous research, reveals a striking consistency. The alignment between patient and family feedback validates the reported adverse effects and counters the tendency within psychiatric practice to attribute symptoms such as cognitive deficits and emotional blunting solely to the persistence of depressive pathology.

The study’s corresponding author, Dr. John Read of the University of East London, emphasizes the need for critical appraisal of ECT’s risk-benefit profile. According to Dr. Read, the act of “applying electricity to the human brain in sufficient dosages to cause seizures is, unsurprisingly, a high-risk procedure with limited efficacy.” This assessment underscores the urgency for clinicians and policymakers to revisit the therapeutic justifications and consent standards surrounding ECT.

From a technical standpoint, ECT’s mechanism of action remains incompletely understood, though it is believed to involve broad neuromodulatory effects triggered by the induced seizure. Historically celebrated for rapid symptom relief in life-threatening depression, the therapy’s side effects, particularly in domains such as neurocognitive function, require more robust, nuanced longitudinal analysis integrating patient and familial perspectives.

While the study’s non-randomized sampling methodology introduces potential biases, it represents the largest global collection of qualitative data from relatives and friends of ECT recipients to date. This expansive reach lends significant weight to its conclusions, inviting reevaluation of ECT’s status within psychiatric treatment algorithms.

Furthermore, the findings spotlight an urgent need for enhanced informed consent processes that transparently communicate the breadth of potential risks and realistic prognoses. The disparity between clinical optimism and lived experience accentuates ethical imperatives to prioritize patient autonomy and safeguard rights when considering ECT.

In summary, this international survey disrupts entrenched narratives portraying ECT as predominantly safe and effective. The combined testimony from patients and their close connections reveals a complex landscape of often long-lasting adverse effects, limited therapeutic gains, and substantial declines in quality of life. This evidence should catalyze renewed discourse among mental health professionals, researchers, and patient advocacy groups striving to optimize psychiatric care pathways with minimal harm.

Given these revelations, future research must integrate comprehensive neuropsychological evaluations, standardized adverse effect monitoring, and multifaceted quality of life assessments. Only through such holistic studies can the psychiatric community responsibly weigh the role of ECT amidst advancing alternatives and evolving understandings of brain stimulation therapies.

Subject of Research: Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) and its effects as reported by relatives and friends of recipients.

Article Title: An international survey of the relatives and friends of electroconvulsive therapy recipients

News Publication Date: 22-Apr-2026

Web References:

• Journal: Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice
• DOI: 10.1111/papt.70062

Keywords: mental health, clinical psychology, adverse effects, informed consent, psychiatry, psychological science, social research

ECT, traditionally viewed as a potentially life-saving intervention for severe depression and other psychiatric disorders, has been controversial due to concerns regarding its cognitive side effects and ethical implications. While some recipients report mood improvements and reduced suicidality, the study strikingly documents that more than half of participants (51%) experienced solely negative effects, highlighting a troubling disparity between clinical narratives and patient realities. This large-scale participant-reported data offers a rare glimpse into the long-term adverse impacts, often overlooked or minimized in clinical trials and regulatory assessments.

One of the most alarming revelations is the prevalence of persistent memory loss, which 82% of respondents identified as a consequence of ECT. This figure significantly exceeds prior clinical estimates, which typically underreport the extent and severity of memory impairments. Participants described disruptions in both retrograde and anterograde memory, underscoring a profound cognitive decline that hampers daily function, identity coherence, and quality of life. Such memory disturbances suggest that ECT may impart lasting neurobiological damage, calling into question the longstanding assumption that cognitive side effects are transient.

Beyond the cognitive domain, many recipients articulated experiences that transcended traditional symptom checklists. Approximately 29% reported “cognitive decline” in broader terms, implicating deficits in executive functioning, attention, and information processing speed. Moreover, 8% expressed feelings of having been “violated” by the procedure, evocative of psychological trauma. This qualitative dimension—accessed through open-ended survey questions—captures the emotional and existential toll of ECT, a facet rarely addressed in quantitative outcome studies but critical to comprehensive patient care.

The psychosocial ramifications surfaced as another critical concern. A striking 33% of participants reported job loss attributable to the aftermath of ECT, while a substantial 68% indicated relationship difficulties post-treatment. These statistics implicate not just neurological impairment but also social isolation, reduced employability, and diminished interpersonal trust. Such consequences underscore the necessity for an integrated approach to patient assessment, one that extends beyond symptom alleviation to encompass functional, social, and occupational domains.

The study’s methodological innovation lies in prioritizing patient voices through open questions rather than relying on predefined symptom lists. By doing so, the research uncovers nuanced adverse effects, including some that have historically been marginalized or omitted from medical discourse. This approach reveals a landscape where the clinical benefits claimed — such as a positive impact on depression (reported by 23%) and reduction in suicidality (13%) — must be weighed against a broad spectrum of potentially debilitating side effects.

Critically, the research team includes members with lived experience of ECT, alongside clinical psychologists, ensuring a multidimensional perspective that bridges scientific rigor with patient advocacy. Their findings challenge the psychiatric community to reconcile clinical guidelines with patient realities, advocating for transparent risk communication and the development of robust monitoring protocols. The team explicitly calls for further research that rigorously evaluates the benefit-risk ratio of ECT, emphasizing the importance of incorporating long-term adverse effect data into safety assessments and regulatory frameworks.

Lead researcher Professor John Read, a distinguished clinical psychologist, underscores the discrepancy between reported patient experiences and psychiatrists’ prevailing reassurances about ECT’s safety. Highlighting memory loss as one of the most consistently documented adverse effects, he points out that existing estimates vastly underestimate patient-reported severity and persistence. Read also stresses the psychological trauma inflicted by the treatment process and its cascading effects on social and occupational functioning—topics often neglected in mainstream psychiatric literature.

Adding a personal dimension, co-author and ECT survivor Lisa Morrison voices frustration at enduring neglect and systemic silencing of patients harmed by ECT. Morrison raises ethical and human rights concerns, emphasizing the absence of mechanisms for ongoing monitoring, rehabilitation, and support for those affected by the therapy’s debilitating consequences. Her commentary highlights the power imbalances inherent in psychiatric practice and regulatory oversight, echoing calls for reform grounded in respect and empathy for patient experiences.

Another co-author, Sue Cunliffe, a former medical doctor incapacitated by ECT-induced cognitive impairment, provides a clinical yet personal testament to the reality of brain injury following the procedure. Diagnosed by a neuropsychologist with specific brain damage attributable to ECT, her narrative confronts the frequently asserted notion that ECT cannot cause permanent neurological harm. This case exemplifies the urgent need for unbiased neuropsychological evaluations in post-ECT care and a reevaluation of clinical assumptions.

The study has garnered attention from mental health advocacy organizations, including Mind, whose Information Content Manager, Rosie Weatherley, echoes the researchers’ concerns. Mind calls for a comprehensive re-examination of ECT’s role in psychiatric treatment, emphasizing the necessity for evidence-based therapies that do not pose comparable risks. They advocate for increased funding and research to identify safer and more effective alternatives that prioritize patient wellbeing and informed consent.

Published in the Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, this landmark survey punctuates ongoing debates about ECT’s place in mental health treatment paradigms. It compels clinicians, policymakers, and researchers to rigorously scrutinize the true extent of adverse effects and to integrate patient-reported outcomes into the evaluation of psychiatric interventions. By centering patient narratives and employing innovative methodologies, this study illuminates the hidden complexities of ECT’s impact, urging a shift towards more compassionate, transparent, and ethically sound psychiatric care.

Ultimately, this research challenges the prevailing optimism surrounding ECT, revealing a more nuanced and troubling picture. It calls for an urgent reassessment of clinical practices, regulatory standards, and patient communication to ensure that decisions surrounding ECT are grounded in a balanced understanding of its benefits and harms. The findings implore the psychiatric community to move beyond reductionist efficacy models, embracing a holistic framework that honors patient experiences and prioritizes long-term health and dignity.

Subject of Research: The long-term self-reported positive and negative effects of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) based on an international patient survey.

Article Title: ‘The self-reported positive and negative effects of electroconvulsive therapy: an international survey’

News Publication Date: February 3, 2026

Web References:

• Journal of Affective Disorders Reports: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666915325001386
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jadr.2025.101008

References:

• Read, J., Cunliffe, S., Hancock, S.P., Harrop, C., Johnstone, L., Morrison, L. (2025). ‘The self-reported positive and negative effects of electroconvulsive therapy: an international survey’, Journal of Affective Disorders Reports.
• Additional related publications on ECT authored by the same research group in journals such as International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, Health Care for Women International, Journal of Medical Ethics, and Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry.

Keywords: Psychological science, Clinical psychology, Mental health, Electroconvulsive Therapy, Cognitive impairment, Memory loss, Patient-reported outcomes, Psychiatric treatment risks, Neuropsychological injury, Mental health ethics