ArticleTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2026
Patient views on paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly: a cross-sectional questionnaire in UK community mental health teams.
Article in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Naturalistic studies examining paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly (PP3M) long-acting injection have proven PP3M to be a safe and effective maintenance treatment for patients with schizophrenia. Objectives: The aim of this study is to explore patients' views and experiences with PP3M. Design: This was a cross-sectional, non-interventional, one-time questionnaire which was designed by pharmacists in collaboration with clinicians experienced in the use of long-acting antipsychotic injections. Methods: Eligible patients were adults currently prescribed PP3M who were attending their routine long-acting injection administration appointment at their community mental health team (CMHT). Results: Of 172 patients who were due PP3M during the study period, 68 (39.5%) completed the questionnaire. Of these, 31.3% found PP3M extremely helpful, 43.3% found it very helpful, 17.9% somewhat helpful, 3% slightly helpful and 4.5% not helpful at all. The majority of respondents (83.8%) preferred PP3M over PP1M, with convenience being cited as the main reason for preference (62.9%). The majority reported mild (35.4%) or no injection pain (30.8%) and no new side effects on PP3M (80.6%). For those experiencing side effects, they were largely not considered troubling (24.6%). CMHT contact remained unchanged since switching to PP3M (56.9%). In-person appointments were considered important (33.8%) or very important (35.4%). Most patients either had no preference (40.3%) or were opposed to having a monthly appointment (32.3%). When asked about preferred injection frequency, patients overwhelmingly selected the 3-monthly (62.5%) or 6-monthly option (35.9%). Conclusion: Patients generally reported high levels of satisfaction with PP3M and perceived the treatment to be helpful and well-tolerated, with most expressing a preference for PP3M compared with a 1-monthly injection.
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.