ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025
Antipsychotic management in general practice: serial cross-sectional study (2011-2020).
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychotropic prescribing in UK primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: national interrupted time-series analysis.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular risk management in patients using antipsychotics: a qualitative feasibility study.BJGP open · 2026Article
- Twenty-five year trend in antipsychotic medication prescribing in England: challenges and opportunities.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- 'Flattened, fattened, and forgotten': the 'dis-integrated' care of patients prescribed antipsychotics in the UK.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLong-term use of antipsychotics confers increased risk of cardiometabolic disease. Ongoing need should be reviewed regularly by psychiatrists.
aimTo explore trends in antipsychotic management in general practice, and the proportions of patients prescribed antipsychotics receiving psychiatrist review. DESIGN AND
settingSerial cross-sectional study using linked general practice and hospital data in Wales (2011-2020).
methodParticipants were adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with general practices in Wales. Outcome measures were prevalence of patients receiving ≥6 antipsychotic prescriptions annually, the proportion of patients prescribed antipsychotics receiving annual psychiatrist review, and the proportion of patients prescribed antipsychotics who were registered on the UK serious mental illness, depression, and/or dementia registers, or not on any of these registers.
resultsPrevalence of adults prescribed long-term antipsychotics increased from 1.055% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.041 to 1.069) in 2011 to 1.448% (95% CI = 1.432 to 1.464) in 2020. The proportion receiving annual psychiatrist review decreased from 59.6% (95% CI = 58.9 to 60.4) in 2011 to 52.0% (95% CI = 51.4 to 52.7) in 2020. The proportion of overall antipsychotic use prescribed to patients on the serious mental illness register decreased from 50.0% (95% CI = 49.4 to 50.7) in 2011 to 43.6% (95% CI = 43.0 to 44.1) by 2020.
conclusionPrevalence of long-term antipsychotic use is increasing. More patients are managed by GPs without psychiatrist review and are not on monitored disease registers; they thus may be less likely to undergo cardiometabolic monitoring and miss opportunities to optimise or deprescribe antipsychotics. These trends pose risks for patients and need to be addressed urgently.
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.