A survey on service users' perspectives about information and shared decision-making in psychotropic drug prescriptions in people with intellectual disabilities

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Gerda de Kuijper, Josien Jonker, Rory Sheehan, Angela Hassiotis
{"title":"A survey on service users' perspectives about information and shared decision-making in psychotropic drug prescriptions in people with intellectual disabilities","authors":"Gerda de Kuijper,&nbsp;Josien Jonker,&nbsp;Rory Sheehan,&nbsp;Angela Hassiotis","doi":"10.1111/bld.12582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>In people with intellectual disabilities and mental disorders and/or challenging behaviours, rates of psychotropic drug prescription are high. In clinical treatments and evaluations, all stakeholders should be involved in a process of shared decision-making (SDM). We aimed to investigate the perspectives of clients and their carers on clients’ treatments with psychotropic drugs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a survey among adults with intellectual disabilities in a Dutch mental healthcare centre providing community, outpatient and inpatient care. Data were collected between January and June 2022. Questions focused on experiences with the provision of information, treatment involvement and SDM and participants' wishes in this regard.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Respondents (57 clients and 21 carers) were largely satisfied with the overall care from their clinicians, and with how information on the pharmacological treatment was provided verbally, but written information was insufficient or not provided. Seventy per cent of clients and 60% of carers reported being involved in medication decision-making. However, over 75% of participants desired greater involvement in SDM and over 60% in medication reviews.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Service users and representatives were satisfied about the treatment and verbal information on their psychotropic drug use. The provision of written information, the SDM process and ongoing evaluation of psychotropic medication use could be improved.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47232,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"52 2","pages":"350-361"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bld.12582","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bld.12582","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In people with intellectual disabilities and mental disorders and/or challenging behaviours, rates of psychotropic drug prescription are high. In clinical treatments and evaluations, all stakeholders should be involved in a process of shared decision-making (SDM). We aimed to investigate the perspectives of clients and their carers on clients’ treatments with psychotropic drugs.

Methods

We conducted a survey among adults with intellectual disabilities in a Dutch mental healthcare centre providing community, outpatient and inpatient care. Data were collected between January and June 2022. Questions focused on experiences with the provision of information, treatment involvement and SDM and participants' wishes in this regard.

Findings

Respondents (57 clients and 21 carers) were largely satisfied with the overall care from their clinicians, and with how information on the pharmacological treatment was provided verbally, but written information was insufficient or not provided. Seventy per cent of clients and 60% of carers reported being involved in medication decision-making. However, over 75% of participants desired greater involvement in SDM and over 60% in medication reviews.

Conclusions

Service users and representatives were satisfied about the treatment and verbal information on their psychotropic drug use. The provision of written information, the SDM process and ongoing evaluation of psychotropic medication use could be improved.

Abstract Image

关于服务使用者对智障人士精神药物处方信息和共同决策的看法的调查
在智障、精神障碍和/或有挑战行为的人群中,精神药物处方率很高。在临床治疗和评估中,所有利益相关者都应参与共同决策(SDM)过程。我们旨在调查客户及其照顾者对客户使用精神药物治疗的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Learning Disabilities is an interdisciplinary international peer-reviewed journal which aims to be the leading journal in the learning disability field. It is the official Journal of the British Institute of Learning Disabilities. It encompasses contemporary debate/s and developments in research, policy and practice that are relevant to the field of learning disabilities. It publishes original refereed papers, regular special issues giving comprehensive coverage to specific subject areas, and especially commissioned keynote reviews on major topics. In addition, there are reviews of books and training materials, and a letters section. The focus of the journal is on practical issues, with current debates and research reports. Topics covered could include, but not be limited to: Current trends in residential and day-care service Inclusion, rehabilitation and quality of life Education and training Historical and inclusive pieces [particularly welcomed are those co-written with people with learning disabilities] Therapies Mental health issues Employment and occupation Recreation and leisure; Ethical issues, advocacy and rights Family and carers Health issues Adoption and fostering Causation and management of specific syndromes Staff training New technology Policy critique and impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信