Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33149559›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020

Antipsychotic Treatment Experiences of People with Schizophrenia: Patient Perspectives from an Online Survey.

Michael J Doane, Martha Sajatovic, Peter J Weiden, Amy K O'Sullivan, Stephen Maher, Jakob B Bjorner, Asia Sikora Kessler, Julia Carpenter-Conlin, Leona Bessonova, Dawn I Velligan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Michael J DoaneAlkermes, Inc, Waltham, MA, USA.
Martha SajatovicUniversity Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Peter J WeidenAlkermes, Inc, Waltham, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5583-5871
Amy K O'SullivanAlkermes, Inc, Waltham, MA, USA.
Stephen MaherOptum, Patient Insights, Johnston, RI, USA.
Jakob B BjornerOptum, Patient Insights, Johnston, RI, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7033-8224
Asia Sikora KesslerOptum, Patient Insights, Johnston, RI, USA.
Julia Carpenter-ConlinAlkermes, Inc, Waltham, MA, USA.
Leona BessonovaAlkermes, Inc, Waltham, MA, USA.
Dawn I VelliganThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8213-1471
Alkermes (United States) · USOptum (United States) · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis survey examined the experiences of people living with schizophrenia who have used oral antipsychotics (APs).

methodsAdults with self-reported physician-diagnosed schizophrenia (N=200), who were members of an online research participation panel and reported taking one or more oral APs within the last year, completed a cross-sectional online survey that focused on direct report of their experiences regarding APs (eg, symptoms, side effects, adherence). Descriptive analyses were conducted for the total survey sample and for subgroups defined a priori by experience with specific, prevalent side effects.

resultsThe mean age of the sample was 41.9 (SD=11.0) years, 50% of participants were female, and 32% were nonwhite. Overall ratings were positive for medication effectiveness and convenience but negative for side effects. While most participants reported that APs improved schizophrenia symptoms (92%), 27% reported APs as having done "more harm than good." Almost all participants (98%) reported experiencing side effects of APs, with the most common being anxiety (88%), feeling drowsy/tired (86%), and trouble concentrating (85%). Side effects frequently cited as either "extremely" or "very" bothersome were weight gain (56%), sexual dysfunction (55%), and trouble concentrating (54%). Over 80% reported that side effects had negatively impacted their work and social functioning (eg, social activities or family/romantic relationships). Since initiating treatment, 56% of respondents had stopped taking APs at some point (65% of these due to side effects). Side effects commonly reported as having led to stopping AP treatment were "feeling like a 'zombie'" (22%), feeling drowsy/tired (21%), and weight gain (20%).

conclusionMost participants reported improvements in schizophrenia symptoms associated with the use of APs. However, most participants also reported experiencing numerous bothersome side effects that negatively impacted their work, social functioning, and treatment adherence. Results highlight the unmet need for new APs with favorable benefit-risk profiles.

Indexed as

adherenceantipsychoticsefficacypreferenceschizophreniaside effects

Identifiers

PMID33149559
PMCPMC7604247
OpenAlexW3097393482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.