Psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists' attitudes to psychotropic optimisation for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: cross-sectional comparison study.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Samuel J Tromans, Shoumitro Deb, Hassan Mahmood, Paraskevi Triantafyllopoulou, Tony Jamieson, Gill Gookey, Paul Bassett, Zayed Malak, Indermeet Sawhney, Laura Korb, Danielle Adams, Rory Sheehan, Rohit Shankar
{"title":"Psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists' attitudes to psychotropic optimisation for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: cross-sectional comparison study.","authors":"Samuel J Tromans, Shoumitro Deb, Hassan Mahmood, Paraskevi Triantafyllopoulou, Tony Jamieson, Gill Gookey, Paul Bassett, Zayed Malak, Indermeet Sawhney, Laura Korb, Danielle Adams, Rory Sheehan, Rohit Shankar","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2025.10875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Off-licence psychotropic use in people with intellectual disability and/or autism, in the absence of psychiatric illness, is a major public health concern in England.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To ascertain and compare views of psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists working with people with intellectual disability and/or autism on psychotropic medication optimisation for this population.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A cross-sectional survey of 13 questions was disseminated online among psychiatrists and other health professionals working with people with intellectual disability and/or autism across England, using a non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to non-probability sampling. The questionnaire covered demographic characteristics, perceived barriers/benefits of psychotropic optimisation (including ethnicity) and views on implementation of a national medicine optimisation programme. Quantitative analysis used chi-squared, Mann-Whitney and unpaired <i>t</i>-tests, with significance taken as <i>P</i> < 0.05. Thematic analysis of free-text responses was undertaken with Braun and Clarke's methodology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 219 respondents, significant differences in attitudes to most issues emerged between psychiatrists (<i>n</i> = 66) and non-psychiatrists (<i>n</i> = 149). Psychiatrists had less optimism of a successful national medication optimisation programme if commissioned, or achieving 50% reduction in psychotropic overprescribing and inappropriate psychotropic prescribing generally. Perceived barriers to reducing overmedication differed significantly between the psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists, Thematic analysis identified five themes (system issues, resources, medication challenges, family and carers, and training and alternatives/structure).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study to highlight important differences between psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists' attitudes to psychotropic optimisation despite respondents overall being broadly supportive of its need. A major finding is the hitherto unquantified concerns of patient ethnicity and its impact on psychotropic optimisation principles.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"11 6","pages":"e249"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10875","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Off-licence psychotropic use in people with intellectual disability and/or autism, in the absence of psychiatric illness, is a major public health concern in England.

Aims: To ascertain and compare views of psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists working with people with intellectual disability and/or autism on psychotropic medication optimisation for this population.

Method: A cross-sectional survey of 13 questions was disseminated online among psychiatrists and other health professionals working with people with intellectual disability and/or autism across England, using a non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to non-probability sampling. The questionnaire covered demographic characteristics, perceived barriers/benefits of psychotropic optimisation (including ethnicity) and views on implementation of a national medicine optimisation programme. Quantitative analysis used chi-squared, Mann-Whitney and unpaired t-tests, with significance taken as P < 0.05. Thematic analysis of free-text responses was undertaken with Braun and Clarke's methodology.

Results: Of 219 respondents, significant differences in attitudes to most issues emerged between psychiatrists (n = 66) and non-psychiatrists (n = 149). Psychiatrists had less optimism of a successful national medication optimisation programme if commissioned, or achieving 50% reduction in psychotropic overprescribing and inappropriate psychotropic prescribing generally. Perceived barriers to reducing overmedication differed significantly between the psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists, Thematic analysis identified five themes (system issues, resources, medication challenges, family and carers, and training and alternatives/structure).

Conclusions: This is the first study to highlight important differences between psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists' attitudes to psychotropic optimisation despite respondents overall being broadly supportive of its need. A major finding is the hitherto unquantified concerns of patient ethnicity and its impact on psychotropic optimisation principles.

精神科医生和非精神科医生对智力残疾和/或自闭症患者的精神药物优化的态度:横断面比较研究。
背景:在没有精神疾病的智力残疾和/或自闭症患者中使用非许可精神药物是英国一个主要的公共卫生问题。目的:确定和比较精神科医生和非精神科医生对智力残疾和/或自闭症患者在精神药物优化方面的观点。方法:一项包含13个问题的横断面调查在英国各地的精神科医生和其他与智力残疾和/或自闭症患者打交道的卫生专业人员中在线传播,使用非歧视性指数滚雪球技术导致非概率抽样。调查问卷涵盖了人口统计学特征、精神药物优化的障碍/益处(包括种族)以及对实施国家药物优化规划的看法。定量分析采用卡方检验、Mann-Whitney检验和非配对t检验,P < 0.05。使用Braun和Clarke的方法对自由文本回复进行主题分析。结果:在219名受访者中,精神科医生(n = 66)和非精神科医生(n = 149)对大多数问题的态度存在显著差异。精神科医生对成功的国家药物优化规划不太乐观,如果委托,或实现50%的精神药物过度处方和不适当的精神药物处方一般减少。减少过度用药的障碍在精神科医生和非精神科医生之间存在显著差异。专题分析确定了五个主题(系统问题、资源、药物挑战、家庭和照顾者、培训和替代方案/结构)。结论:这是第一项强调精神科医生和非精神科医生对精神药物优化态度之间重要差异的研究,尽管受访者总体上广泛支持其必要性。一个主要的发现是迄今为止未量化的患者种族问题及其对精神药物优化原则的影响。
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
BJPsych Open
BJPsych Open Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
610
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
×
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