ArticleBMC psychiatry2018
A thematic analysis assessing clinical decision-making in antipsychotic prescribing for schizophrenia.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring early intervention in psychosis (EIP) perspectives towards pharmacogenomics (PGx) implementation to support antipsychotic prescribing: a multi-method qualitative exploration.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- A realist review of medication optimisation of community dwelling service users with serious mental illness.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Review
- Efficacy and Safety Profiles of Antipsychotic Drugs as Viewed by Psychiatrists: A Comparative Analysis of Cariprazine and Risperidone.Consortium psychiatricum · 2023Article
- Schizophrenia patients with a metabolically abnormal obese phenotype have milder negative symptoms.BMC psychiatry · 2020Article
- Clinicians' views of treatment types for first episode psychosis delivered in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS).EClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent decades atypical antipsychotics have increased treatment options available for schizophrenia, however there is conflicting evidence concerning the trade-off between clinical efficacy and side effects for the different classes of antipsychotics. There has been a consistent increase in atypical antipsychotic prescribing compared to typical, despite evidence showing that neither class is superior. This leads to the question of whether prescribers are selective in their uptake of research evidence and clinical guidelines and if so, what influences their choice.. This study aims to identify the factors that contribute to the prescribing choice and how these can be used to aid knowledge translation and guideline implementation.
methodsA thematic analysis study was conducted using data from 11 semi-structured interviews with clinicians with experience in prescribing for schizophrenia.
resultsThe analysis identified five themes underpinning prescribing behaviour: (1) ownership and collaboration; (2) compromise; (3) patient involvement; (4) integrating research evidence; and (5) experience.
conclusionThe themes mapped to various degrees onto current models of evidence-based decision making and suggest that there is scope to re-think the guideline implementation frameworks to incorporate recurring themes salient to clinicians who ultimately use the guidelines. This will further translation of future evidence into clinical practice, accelerating clinical progress.
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.