Developing and testing of an assessment tool for appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing in people with intellectual disabilities.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety Pub Date : 2025-07-08 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20420986251342351
Josien Jonker, Gerda Margaretha de Kuijper, Sytse Ulbe Zuidema
{"title":"Developing and testing of an assessment tool for appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing in people with intellectual disabilities.","authors":"Josien Jonker, Gerda Margaretha de Kuijper, Sytse Ulbe Zuidema","doi":"10.1177/20420986251342351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prescribing psychotropic drugs often leads to long-term use in people with intellectual disabilities. In this population, polypharmacy is also common, likely because of the high frequencies of comorbid somatic, behavioural and mental disorders, while the vulnerability for medication side effects is high. Therefore, there is a risk of inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic drugs in people with intellectual disabilities.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to develop a tool to assess the appropriateness of psychotropic drug prescriptions in people with intellectual disabilities and to test its psychometric properties.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>In this study, we used a mixed-methods design. In a qualitative phase, we developed the tool, followed by a quantitative phase, to evaluate its psychometric properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a modified Delphi procedure consisting of a preparation phase and three Delphi iterations to develop the tool and to determine which items encompass the concept of appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing. A weighting round was conducted to determine a summated index score. Finally, the test-retest reliability, the interrater reliability and the convergent validity of the tool were investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Delphi panel, with 37 field expert participants, agreed on the content of the tool, including seven domains (indication, dosage, duration, duplication, interactions, evaluation of effect and evaluation of side effects) that should be assessed regarding appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing. The test-retest reliability and the interrater reliability turned out to be moderate to perfect for five of the seven domains, except the domains 'evaluation of effect' and 'evaluation of side effects', although no interrater agreement was found in the domain 'duration'. The convergent validity was slight.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, this study resulted in the development of a reliable tool to support prescribers in clinical practice in the appropriate prescribing of psychotropic drugs in people with intellectual disabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":23012,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety","volume":"16 ","pages":"20420986251342351"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12246530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986251342351","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prescribing psychotropic drugs often leads to long-term use in people with intellectual disabilities. In this population, polypharmacy is also common, likely because of the high frequencies of comorbid somatic, behavioural and mental disorders, while the vulnerability for medication side effects is high. Therefore, there is a risk of inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic drugs in people with intellectual disabilities.

Objectives: This study aimed to develop a tool to assess the appropriateness of psychotropic drug prescriptions in people with intellectual disabilities and to test its psychometric properties.

Design: In this study, we used a mixed-methods design. In a qualitative phase, we developed the tool, followed by a quantitative phase, to evaluate its psychometric properties.

Methods: We used a modified Delphi procedure consisting of a preparation phase and three Delphi iterations to develop the tool and to determine which items encompass the concept of appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing. A weighting round was conducted to determine a summated index score. Finally, the test-retest reliability, the interrater reliability and the convergent validity of the tool were investigated.

Results: The Delphi panel, with 37 field expert participants, agreed on the content of the tool, including seven domains (indication, dosage, duration, duplication, interactions, evaluation of effect and evaluation of side effects) that should be assessed regarding appropriate psychotropic drug prescribing. The test-retest reliability and the interrater reliability turned out to be moderate to perfect for five of the seven domains, except the domains 'evaluation of effect' and 'evaluation of side effects', although no interrater agreement was found in the domain 'duration'. The convergent validity was slight.

Conclusion: In conclusion, this study resulted in the development of a reliable tool to support prescribers in clinical practice in the appropriate prescribing of psychotropic drugs in people with intellectual disabilities.

开发和测试一种评估工具,为智力残疾者提供适当的精神药物处方。
背景:处方精神药物经常导致智力障碍患者长期使用。在这一人群中,多重用药也很常见,可能是因为共病躯体、行为和精神障碍的频率很高,同时药物副作用的脆弱性很高。因此,在智力残疾人群中存在不适当的精神药物处方风险。目的:本研究旨在开发一种评估智障患者精神药物处方适宜性的工具,并测试其心理测量特性。设计:本研究采用混合方法设计。在定性阶段,我们开发了该工具,随后是定量阶段,以评估其心理测量特性。方法:我们使用一个改进的德尔菲程序,包括一个准备阶段和三次德尔菲迭代来开发工具,并确定哪些项目包含适当的精神药物处方的概念。进行了一轮加权,以确定综合指数得分。最后,对工具的重测信度、互测信度和收敛效度进行了研究。结果:由37名现场专家参与的德尔菲小组就该工具的内容达成一致,包括七个领域(适应症、剂量、持续时间、重复、相互作用、效果评价和副作用评价),这些领域应被评估为合适的精神药物处方。除“效果评价”和“副作用评价”外,7个域中有5个域的重测信度和互测信度为中等至完美,而“持续时间”域的互测信度不一致。收敛效度较低。结论:总之,这项研究的结果是开发了一个可靠的工具,以支持处方医生在临床实践中适当地为智力残疾患者开精神药物处方。
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
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety Medicine-Pharmacology (medical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
31
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies pertaining to the safe use of drugs in patients. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in drug safety, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. The editors welcome articles of current interest on research across all areas of drug safety, including therapeutic drug monitoring, pharmacoepidemiology, adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, pharmacokinetics, pharmacovigilance, medication/prescribing errors, risk management, ethics and regulation.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信