A groundbreaking international survey has unveiled profound and often devastating consequences associated with Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT), challenging longstanding perceptions about the treatment’s safety and efficacy. Conducted by researchers at the University of East London, this extensive study is the first to employ an online format to capture a broad, global snapshot of patient experiences, spanning 776 recipients across 41 countries. The findings reveal not only the superficial clinical outcomes but also delve deep into the complex cognitive and psychosocial repercussions that patients endure long after undergoing ECT.
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
