ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2020
Oral antipsychotic prescribing and association with neighbourhood-level socioeconomic status: analysis of time trend of routine primary care data in England, 2011-2016.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2020. 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.
- Antipsychotic prescribing trends in England: role of regional disparities, health inequalities and ethnic density.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Trends in recorded deaths involving antipsychotics: The role of deprivation, ethnicity, and regional disparities.PloS one · 2026Article
- Normalising the Implementation of Pharmacogenomic (PGx) Testing in Adult Mental Health Settings: A Theory-Based Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Prepandemic psychotropic drug status in Portugal: a nationwide pharmacoepidemiological profile.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Polypharmacy and Mental Health Issues in the Senior Hemodialysis Patient.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing rates of antipsychotic prescribing have been reported previously, particularly for second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which are generally better tolerated than the older first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs). Prescribers, however, may exert bias, favouring prescriptions of novel drugs for patients of higher socioeconomic status (SES). We aimed to examine time trends in: (1) prescriptions of oral FGAs vs. SGAs and (2) associations between antipsychotic prescriptions and neighbourhood-level SES in England between 2011 and 2016.
methodsWe used publicly available data for prescriptions made in primary care and linked general practices' postcodes with the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) as a measure for neighbourhood-level SES. Absolute numbers of antipsychotic prescriptions were calculated. Linear regression analysis was used to examine the association of SGA vs. FGA prescription pattern with time and with SES.
resultsA total of 27,486,000 oral antipsychotics were prescribed during the study period, mostly SGAs (n = 21,700,000; 78.9%). There was a significant increase in the ratio of SGA/FGA prescriptions over time (β = 0.376, 95% CI 0.277-0.464, P < 0.001). Individual FGAs were increasingly prescribed in areas of lower SES and the converse for SGAs except amisulpride. During the study period, a significantly larger proportion of total SGA prescriptions relative to total FGAs were made in areas of higher SES (β = 0.182, 95% CI 0.117-0.249, P < 0.001).
conclusionPrescriptions of antipsychotics continue to rise overall, with SGAs taking preference especially in areas of higher SES. The pattern of antipsychotic prescription favouring people in areas of lower social deprivation carries implications on inequalities even among sub-groups of people with mental disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31630215What 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.