ArticleFrontiers in health services2025
A novel way to understand and communicate the burden of AntiPsycHotic prescribing for adults across specialist Intellectual Disability services in England and Wales: the APHID feasibility study protocol.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06238089 (A Novel Way to Understand and Communicate the Burden of Antipsychotic Prescribing for Adults Across Specialist Intellectual Disability Services in England and Wales.), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Novel Way to Understand and Communicate the Burden of Antipsychotic Prescribing for Adults Across Specialist Intellectual Disability Services in England and Wales.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The stopping overmedication of people with a learning disability, autism, or both (STOMP) programme was launched in 2016 in response to concerns about the over-prescribing of medication in people with intellectual disability. The programmes focus has been on the withdrawal of antipsychotic treatment for the individual person than the service or dosage optimisation. It could be that cumulative service level antipsychotic treatment converted and presented as chlorpromazine units could allow for comparison of services on how antipsychotic treatment is being utilised and allow for comparing of practices between services in different regions. The aim of this feasibility study is to explore if cumulative service scores of antipsychotic treatment burden could define prescribing patterns across different specialist intellectual disability services in England and Wales, focused on those on ≥2 antipsychotic treatments. There is no evidence to use ≥2 antipsychotic treatments for any individual. Methods: The study is a feasibility cross-sectional study investigating service antipsychotic treatment cumulative burden at seven annual time points, 2017-2023. De-identified data for adult patients with intellectual disability under the care of specialist intellectual disability services in receipt of ≥2 oral and/or long-acting IM (intramuscular) injectable (depot) antipsychotic treatments are included. Demographic and clinical data will be collated, in addition to information on the prescribed antipsychotic treatments. The data will be evaluated for data completeness and will be inputted into the Statistical Process Control tool. Outcomes will be measured using a combination of methods including descriptive analysis (including mean, standard deviation and percentage values), and a mixed effects regression model, to determine changes in chlorpromazine equivalent dose values over time. Results: Seven England and Wales National Health Service intellectual disability services are recruiting up to 490 people. There were recognised challenges in identifying the relevant eligible cohort across services and administering a common set of outcome measures. Discussion: This study is intended to inform decisions to design a wider registry that would involve antipsychotic treatment prescribing data for patients across multiple sites nationwide. Developing a de-identified database using routinely collected data, without the requirement for informed consent, comes with unique benefits and challenges. Registry reference: NCT06238089 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).
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.