ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Antipsychotic prescribing patterns and determinants in first-episode psychosis: a 2019-2024 cross-sectional study from Zambia.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFirst-episode psychosis represents a critical period in psychotic disorders, during which timely, appropriate treatment can greatly influence long-term outcomes. Antipsychotics remain the foundation of first-episode psychosis management, yet prescribing patterns vary across settings due to patient characteristics, clinical factors, and resource availability. Although factors influencing antipsychotic choice are increasingly recognized, these have not been examined in the Zambian context. Understanding local prescribing practices is essential to optimizing care and outcomes for individuals with first-episode psychosis.
objectiveTo describe antipsychotic prescription patterns in adults with first-episode psychosis and identify demographic and treatment-related factors associated with second-generation antipsychotic use.
methodsA cross-sectional review of medical records was conducted among 213 adults (≥ 18 years) prescribed an antipsychotic for First-episode psychosis between 2019 and 2024 at Chainama Hills College Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia. A data abstraction form captured sociodemographic, clinical, and prescriber information. Descriptive statistics characterized the sample and prescribing patterns, and multivariable logistic regression identified factors independently associated with prescribing second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotics.
resultsThe mean age of participants was 30.23 years (SD = 11.47), with 72.3% being male, 65.3% single, and 62.0% unemployed. Other psychoses (54.0%) and brief/acute psychosis (34.7%) were the most common diagnoses in our sample. Chlorpromazine (n = 74) and haloperidol (n = 75), both first-generation agents, were the most frequently prescribed, followed by risperidone (n = 65), a second-generation agent. Overall, first-generation antipsychotics accounted for a slightly larger share of prescriptions. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, females had higher odds of receiving a second-generation antipsychotic prescription (AOR = 7.55, 95% CI 3.27-17.41, p < 0.001), while partial adherence to treatment reduced the odds of second-generation antipsychotic prescription (AOR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.92, p < 0.05).
conclusionThe findings indicate a relative preference for first-generation antipsychotics, with prescribing influenced by gender and treatment adherence. Prescribing reflects pragmatic, context-driven decision-making shaped by medication availability and affordability in a low-resource setting. This calls for policies that strengthen evidence-based prescribing practices, integrate sex-sensitive and adherence-focused approaches, and improve access to effective antipsychotic options within health systems. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable. This study is a secondary analysis of de-identified electronic health records and does not constitute a clinical trial.
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.