Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31220160›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Mental health professionals' views and experiences of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation.

Ruth E Cooper, Éanna Hanratty, Nicola Morant, Joanna Moncrieff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Helping people to discontinue antipsychotics: if, when and how.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Antipsychotic management in general practice: serial cross-sectional study (2011-2020).The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ruth E CooperNewham Centre for Mental Health, Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9735-4731
Éanna HanrattyResearch & Development Department, Goodmayes Hospital, North East London NHS Foundation Trust, Essex, United Kingdom.
Nicola MorantDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4022-8133
Joanna MoncrieffResearch & Development Department, Goodmayes Hospital, North East London NHS Foundation Trust, Essex, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0514-20004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe widely established treatment for psychosis is long-term antipsychotic medication. However, many people stop taking this treatment, and request other options. There are also growing concerns about adverse effects, but currently no professional guidelines to support reducing or stopping these drugs. The views and experiences of individual mental health professionals around reducing and stopping antipsychotics are therefore crucial in treatment decisions.

methodsWe conducted 7 focus groups with prescribing psychiatrists and other members of community-based statutory mental health services in London. Participants discussed their views about, experiences, and processes of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsParticipants acknowledged that antipsychotics can have severe adverse effects. They were generally supportive of trying to reduce these drugs to the lowest effective dose, although stopping antipsychotics was less acceptable. Prior experiences of adverse events after reduction or discontinuation meant that both were approached with caution. Reduction was also reported to be hampered by organisational and knowledge barriers. Lack of resources, pressure to discharge, and poor continuity of care were seen as organisational barriers. Knowledge barriers included inadequate evidence about who might be best suited to reduction, and lack of guidance about how this could be done safely. This meant that reduction was often prompted by patients, and sometimes actively discouraged, and stability with maintenance treatment was often favoured.

conclusionsConcerns about risk and other barriers means that clinicians are often reluctant to implement reduction or discontinuation of antipsychotic medication. In order to increase the treatment options available to service users, more research and guidance on how to minimise the risks of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation is required to enable clinicians to engage more constructively with service users requests, offering people more choice and control in managing their mental health condition.

Indexed as

AttitudeHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelPerceptionAdultAntipsychotic AgentsDecision MakingDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Administration ScheduleDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleFocus GroupsHumansLondonMaleMental HealthAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID31220160
PMCPMC6586401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.