ReviewHuman psychopharmacology2026
Underprescription of Clozapine: A Narrative Review Regarding 'Clozaphobia'.
Review in Human psychopharmacology, 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.
- When Doing Nothing Feels Safer: A Multilevel Framework for Therapeutic Inertia in Psychiatry.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
This review aims to examine the appropriateness of the term 'clozaphobia' to characterise the obstacles contributing to the underprescription of clozapine (CLZ). English-language, peer-reviewed studies addressing clinicians', patients' and/or carers' attitudes toward CLZ were considered eligible for full-text review. In May 2025, a search was conducted using the keywords clozapine, clozaphobia, fear*, underus*, underprescri*, underutiliz*, and barrier*, restricted to titles and abstracts on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane. A total of 362 records were retrieved, and 30 records were identified through backward citation searching. After screening, 53 studies were eligible for review. This review identified several barriers to CLZ use, which were grouped into three broad domains: clinician-related, medication- and patient-related, and administrative-related barriers. Key barriers included difficulties in recognising Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia (TRS) and identifying candidates for CLZ, lack of training and confidence, negative attitudes toward CLZ, variability in treatment pathways, concerns about CLZ's adverse effects, and challenges in convincing carers of the need for CLZ, insufficient resources, unclear professional roles, and fragmentation of services. The vast majority of identified barriers stem from misconceptions or negative attitudes toward CLZ, which unjustifiably limit patient access to this effective treatment, and can be addressed through the implementation of existing facilitating strategies. In such contexts, the term clozaphobia seems appropriate and its use may help to raise awareness and promote critical reflexion on this subject. With the end of the clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, it is now time to push society to start producing higher dose pills and a long-acting injectable version of clozapine.
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.