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