ArticleBMJ open2019
Experiences of psychotropic medication use and decision-making for adults with intellectual disability: a multistakeholder qualitative study in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions of People With Intellectual Disabilities on Autonomy and Decision-Making in Daily Life: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Access to choice‑enabled healthcare providers among children and adults with intellectual disabilities in comparison with the general population (IDcare).BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A Rapid Mapping Review of Medication Burden in Adults with an Intellectual Disability: What We Know and What We Do Not Know.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2026Review
- Experiences with shared decision-making in psychotropic medication for people with intellectual disabilities: perspectives of experts by experience, relatives, and support professionals.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists' attitudes to psychotropic optimisation for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: cross-sectional comparison study.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- How Is Psychotropic Use for Challenging Behaviour in People With Intellectual Disability Understood by Stakeholders? A Concept Analysis Using Rodgers' Evolutionary Approach.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Article
- Article
- Medication management issues perceived by pharmacists and disability caregivers while supporting people with disability.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024Article
- Withdrawing Antipsychotics for Challenging Behaviours in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: Experiences and Views of Prescribers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Management of psychotropic medications in adults with intellectual disability: a scoping review.Annals of medicine · 2022Article
- Withdrawing Antipsychotics for Challenging Behaviours in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: Experiences and Views of Experts by Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Support staff liaising effectively with professionals for the rational use of psychotropics for behaviours that challenge in adults with intellectual disabilities: Findings from a co-design event.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Experiences of the Medication Use Process by People with Intellectual Disabilities. What a Pharmacist Should Know!Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesUnderstanding patient and carer perspectives is essential to improving the quality of medication prescribing. This study aimed to explore experiences of psychotropic medication use among people with intellectual disability (ID) and their carers, with a focus on how medication decisions are made.
designThematic analysis of data collected in individual semistructured interviews. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingFourteen adults with ID, 12 family carers and 12 paid carers were recruited from specialist psychiatry services, community groups, care providers and training organisations in the UK.
resultsPeople with ID reported being highly compliant with psychotropic medication, based on a largely unquestioned view of medication as important and necessary, and belief in the authority of the psychiatrist. Though they sometimes experienced medication negatively, they were generally not aware of their right to be involved in medication decisions. Paid and family carers reported undertaking a number of medication-related activities. Their 'front-line' status and longevity of relationships meant that carers felt they possessed important forms of knowledge relevant to medication decisions. Both groups of carers valued decision-making in which they felt they had a voice and a genuine role. While some in each group described making joint decisions about medication with psychiatrists, lack of involvement was often described. This took three forms in participants' accounts: being uninformed of important facts, insufficiently included in discussions and lacking influence to shape decisions. Participants described efforts to democratise the decision-making process by gathering information, acting to disrupt perceived power asymmetries and attempting to prove their credibility as valid decision-making partners.
conclusionsStakeholder involvement is a key element of medication optimisation that is not always experienced in decisions about psychotropic medication for people with ID. Forms of shared decision-making could be developed to promote collaboration and offer people with ID and their carers greater involvement in medication decisions.
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.