ArticleBJPsych open2025
Psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists' attitudes to psychotropic optimisation for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: cross-sectional comparison study.
Article in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOff-licence psychotropic use in people with intellectual disability and/or autism, in the absence of psychiatric illness, is a major public health concern in England.
aimsTo ascertain and compare views of psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists working with people with intellectual disability and/or autism on psychotropic medication optimisation for this population.
methodA cross-sectional survey of 13 questions was disseminated online among psychiatrists and other health professionals working with people with intellectual disability and/or autism across England, using a non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to non-probability sampling. The questionnaire covered demographic characteristics, perceived barriers/benefits of psychotropic optimisation (including ethnicity) and views on implementation of a national medicine optimisation programme. Quantitative analysis used chi-squared, Mann-Whitney and unpaired
resultsOf 219 respondents, significant differences in attitudes to most issues emerged between psychiatrists (
conclusionsThis is the first study to highlight important differences between psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists' attitudes to psychotropic optimisation despite respondents overall being broadly supportive of its need. A major finding is the hitherto unquantified concerns of patient ethnicity and its impact on psychotropic optimisation principles.
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.