Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGrünwald, LM
dc.contributor.authorDuddy, C
dc.contributor.authorByng, Richard
dc.contributor.authorCrellin, N
dc.contributor.authorMoncrieff, J
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-14T11:37:05Z
dc.date.issued2021-08-04
dc.identifier.issn1471-244X
dc.identifier.issn1471-244X
dc.identifier.other390
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/18060
dc.description.abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>Increasing number of service users diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis are being discharged from specialist secondary care services to primary care, many of whom are prescribed long-term antipsychotics. It is unclear if General Practitioners (GPs) have the confidence and experience to appropriately review and adjust doses of antipsychotic medication without secondary care support.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Aim</jats:title> <jats:p>To explore barriers and facilitators of conducting antipsychotic medication reviews in primary care for individuals with no specialist mental health input.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Design &amp; setting</jats:title> <jats:p>Realist review in general practice settings.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Method</jats:title> <jats:p>A realist review has been conducted to synthesise evidence on antipsychotic medication reviews conducted in primary care with service users diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis. Following initial scoping searches and discussions with stakeholders, a systematic search and iterative secondary searches were conducted. Articles were systematically screened and analysed to develop a realist programme theory explaining the contexts (C) and mechanisms (M) which facilitate or prevent antipsychotic medication reviews (O) in primary care settings, and the potential outcomes of medication reviews.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>Meaningful Antipsychotic medication reviews may not occur for individuals with only primary care medical input. Several, often mutually reinforcing, mechanisms have been identified as potential barriers to conducting such reviews, including low expectations of recovery for people with severe mental illness, a perceived lack of capability to understand and participate in medication reviews, linked with a lack of information shared in appointments between GPs and Service Users, perceived risk and uncertainty regarding antipsychotic medication and illness trajectory.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>The review identified reciprocal and reinforcing stereotypes affecting both GPs and service users. Possible mechanisms to counteract these barriers are discussed, including realistic expectations of medication, and the need for increased information sharing and trust between GPs and service users.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

dc.format.extent390-
dc.format.mediumElectronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.subjectPrimary care
dc.subjectGeneral practice
dc.subjectAntipsychotic medication
dc.subjectMedication review
dc.subjectSevere mental illness (SMI)
dc.subjectSchizophrenia
dc.subjectPsychosis
dc.subjectStigma
dc.subjectTrust
dc.subjectShared decision making (SDM)
dc.titleThe role of trust and hope in antipsychotic medication reviews between GPs and service users a realist review
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
dc.typeReview
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000684235900005&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue1
plymouth.volume21
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalBMC Psychiatry
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12888-021-03355-3
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/FoH - Community and Primary Care
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine (ITSMED)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine (ITSMED)/CCT&PS
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-06-26
dc.rights.embargodate2021-10-15
dc.identifier.eissn1471-244X
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1186/s12888-021-03355-3
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-08-04
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV