ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Mental health professionals' perspective on the use of esketamine in treatment-resistant depression and their motivation to adopt it: a Saudi cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. 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.
- Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Esketamine Nasal Spray in Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Retrospective Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esketamine is an innovative treatment for individuals with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). However, its adoption could depend on the perceptions and motivations of prescribing psychiatrists, among other factors. Objective: This study aims to explore the attitudes of psychiatrists (of all levels, including those in training) across Saudi Arabia toward the use of esketamine for TRD and investigate the motivational factors related to their willingness to adopt it. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that utilized a convenience sampling method. The study tool consisted of a questionnaire developed by the research team and the Physician-Motivation Adoption Scale. Results: Of the 223 participants surveyed, 19.73% reported having prescribed esketamine, most commonly to 1-2 patients. The most frequently perceived adverse effects were dissociation/delusions/hallucinations (66.82%), followed by dizziness/vertigo (59.19%). Esketamine prescription was significantly associated with older age (p = 0.049), consultant-level practice (p = 0.003), practice in the Western Region (p < 0.001), lower concern about potential misuse (p = 0.027), perceiving easier access (p = 0.004), and fewer concerns about the administration process (p = 0.007). Ordinal logistic regression demonstrated that senior registrars, registrars, and residents were significantly less likely to prescribe esketamine than consultants (OR = 0.21, 0.17, and 0.10, respectively). "Not being sure" that cost was a barrier was associated with lower odds of prescribing (OR = 0.32, p = 0.022), whereas higher functional subscale scores were strongly associated with willingness to prescribe (OR = 1.62, p < 0.001). The most commonly reported barriers to prescribing esketamine included the administration process (66.37%) and cost (65.02%). Conclusion: Despite significant interest, actual adoption of esketamine is low, mainly due to logistical barriers, high costs, and availability issues. Concerns about side effects and potential misuse are also linked to hesitation. Accordingly, interventions to address the obstacles and concerns are needed.
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.