Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31780594›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Experiences of psychotropic medication use and decision-making for adults with intellectual disability: a multistakeholder qualitative study in the UK.

Rory Sheehan, Angela Hassiotis, André Strydom, Nicola Morant

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rory SheehanDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK r.sheehan@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4164-9661
Angela HassiotisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
André StrydomDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Science, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK.
Nicola MorantDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4022-8133
University College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2016-09-140Department of Health RP-DG-0611-10003
6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Making, SharedPatient ParticipationAdultAgedCaregiversEnglandFamilyFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansIntellectual DisabilityMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareProfessional RolePsychotropic Drugsintellectual disabilitypsychotropic medicationqualitative researchshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID31780594
PMCPMC6887070
OpenAlexW2989956840

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.