ArticleBJPsych open2018
Qualitative systematic review of barriers and facilitators to patient-involved antipsychotic prescribing.
Article in BJPsych open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiential and Medical Knowledge of Shared Decision-Making: Exploring Clinician and Service User Perspectives in NHS Community Mental Health Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Barriers to long-acting injectable antipsychotic use for community-dwelling patients with schizophrenia in China: a qualitative process analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Review
- From Idealist to Realist-Designing and Implementing Shared Decision-Making Interventions in the Choice of Antipsychotic Prescription in People Living with Psychosis (SHAPE): A Realist Review.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2025Review
- A realist review of medication optimisation of community dwelling service users with serious mental illness.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Review
- Shared decision making and associated factors among patients with psychotic disorders: a cross-sectional study.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Experiences of shared decision making among patients with psychotic disorders in Norway: a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- The role of trust and hope in antipsychotic medication reviews between GPs and service users a realist review.BMC psychiatry · 2021Review
- Article
- Clinicians' views of treatment types for first episode psychosis delivered in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS).EClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
- Understanding young peoples' and family members' views of treatment for first episode psychosis in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS).EClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
- Patient and family-initiated escalation of care: a qualitative systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- A qualitative exploration of service user views about using digital health interventions for self-management in severe mental health problems.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
- Patients' experiences of long-acting injectable antipsychotics: a qualitative study.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite policy and practice mandates for patient involvement, people with serious mental illness often feel marginalised in decisions about antipsychotic medication. Aims To examine stakeholder perspectives of barriers and facilitators to involving people with serious mental illness in antipsychotic prescribing decisions.
methodSystematic thematic synthesis.
resultsSynthesis of 29 studies identified the following key influences on involvement: patient's capability, desire and expectation for involvement, organisational context, and the consultation setting and processes.
conclusionsOptimal patient involvement in antipsychotic decisions demands that individual and contextual barriers are addressed. There was divergence in perceived barriers to involvement identified by patients and prescribers. For example, patients felt that lack of time in consultations was a barrier to involvement, something seldom raised by prescribers, who identified organisational barriers. Patients must understand their rights to involvement and the value of their expertise. Organisational initiatives should mandate prescriber responsibility to overcome barriers to involvement. Declaration of interest None.
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.