Trial reportBMC psychiatry2016
Results of a pilot cluster randomised trial of the use of a Medication Review Tool for people taking antipsychotic medication.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Supported decision-making interventions in mental healthcare: A systematic review of current evidence and implementation barriers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Trends, challenges, and priorities for shared decision making in mental health: The first umbrella review.The International journal of social psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions to Improve Medication Adherence in Patients with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Digital Shared Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- Experiences of taking neuroleptic medication and impacts on symptoms, sense of self and agency: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative data.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2020Pooled it
- Antipsychotic Treatment Failure: A Systematic Review on Risk Factors and Interventions for Treatment Adherence in Psychosis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- Association of Focused Medication Review With Optimization of Psychotropic Drug Prescribing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2018Pooled it
- Self-Determination and Choice in Mental Health: Qualitative Insights From a Study of Self-Directed Care.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2019Trial
- VIEWER: an extensible visual analytics framework for enhancing mental healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Digital health interventions to improve adherence to oral antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- An analysis of views about supported reduction or discontinuation of antipsychotic treatment among people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Barriers and Enablers to Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Medication Management: A Qualitative Investigation of Clinician and Service Users' Views.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Article
- Making decisions about antipsychotics: a qualitative study of patient experience and the development of a decision aid.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
- Cognitive Analytic Therapy for psychosis: A case series.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2019Article
- Continue, adjust, or stop antipsychotic medication: developing and user testing an encounter decision aid for people with first-episode and long-term psychosis.BMC psychiatry · 2018Article
- What side effects are problematic for patients prescribed antipsychotic medication? The Maudsley Side Effects (MSE) measure for antipsychotic medication.Psychological medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGovernment policy encourages increasing involvement of patients in their long-term care. This paper describes the development and pilot evaluation of a 'Medication Review Tool' designed to assist people to participate more effectively in discussions about antipsychotic drug treatment.
methodsThe Medication Review Tool developed consisted of a form to help patients identify pros and cons of their current antipsychotic treatment and any desired changes. It was associated with a website containing information and links about antipsychotics. For the trial, participants diagnosed with psychotic disorders were recruited from community mental health services. Cluster randomisation was used to allocate health professionals (care co-ordinators) and their associated patients to use of the Medication Review Tool or usual care. All participants had a medical consultation scheduled, and those in the intervention group completed the Medication Review Tool, with the help of their health professional prior to this, and took the completed Form into the consultation. Two follow-up interviews were conducted up to three months after the consultation. The principal outcome was the Decision Self Efficacy Scale (DSES). Qualitative feedback was collected from patients in the intervention group.
resultsOne hundred and thirty patients were screened, sixty patients were randomised, 51 completed the first follow-up assessment and 49 completed the second. Many patients were not randomised due to the timing of their consultation, and involvement of health professionals was inconsistent. There was no difference between the groups on the DSES (-4.16 95 % CI -9.81, 1.49), symptoms, side effects, antipsychotic doses or patient satisfaction. Scores on the Medication Adherence Questionnaire indicated an increase in participants' reported inclination to adherence in the intervention group (coefficient adjusted for baseline values -0.44; 95 % CI -0.76, -0.11), and there was a small increase in positive attitudes to antipsychotic medication (Drug Attitude Inventory, adjusted coefficient 1.65; 95 % CI -0.09, 3.40). Qualitative feedback indicated patients valued the Tool for identifying both positive and negative aspects of drug treatment.
conclusionsThe trial demonstrated the design was feasible, although challenges included service re-configurations and maintaining health professional involvement. Results may indicate a more intensive and sustained intervention is required to facilitate participation in decision-making for this group of patients.
trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN12055530 , Retrospectively registered 9/12/2013.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.