ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2025
Developing and testing of an assessment tool for appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing in people with intellectual disabilities.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prescribing psychotropic drugs often leads to long-term use in people with intellectual disabilities. In this population, polypharmacy is also common, likely because of the high frequencies of comorbid somatic, behavioural and mental disorders, while the vulnerability for medication side effects is high. Therefore, there is a risk of inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic drugs in people with intellectual disabilities. Objectives: This study aimed to develop a tool to assess the appropriateness of psychotropic drug prescriptions in people with intellectual disabilities and to test its psychometric properties. Design: In this study, we used a mixed-methods design. In a qualitative phase, we developed the tool, followed by a quantitative phase, to evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: We used a modified Delphi procedure consisting of a preparation phase and three Delphi iterations to develop the tool and to determine which items encompass the concept of appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing. A weighting round was conducted to determine a summated index score. Finally, the test-retest reliability, the interrater reliability and the convergent validity of the tool were investigated. Results: The Delphi panel, with 37 field expert participants, agreed on the content of the tool, including seven domains (indication, dosage, duration, duplication, interactions, evaluation of effect and evaluation of side effects) that should be assessed regarding appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing. The test-retest reliability and the interrater reliability turned out to be moderate to perfect for five of the seven domains, except the domains 'evaluation of effect' and 'evaluation of side effects', although no interrater agreement was found in the domain 'duration'. The convergent validity was slight. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study resulted in the development of a reliable tool to support prescribers in clinical practice in the appropriate prescribing of psychotropic drugs in people with intellectual disabilities.
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.