Cited by 16Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryMental Health and Patient Involvement

Adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs: survey of doctors’ versus patients’ perspective.

Nosè, Michela, Mazzi, Maria Angela, Esposito, Eleonora, Bianchini, Marco, Petrosemolo, Paola, Ostuzzi, Giovanni, Tansella, Michele, Barbui, Corrado·2012·Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Abstract

Aims Almost no data are available on whether patients and doctors have similar or dissimilar opinions on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects. The aim of this survey is to compare doctors' versus patients' perspective on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects in a sample of patients under the care of the South-Verona mental health services.Methods All patients exposed to antipsychotic drugs during a census period of 6 months were identified. For each included subject, socio-demographic, clinical and treatment data were extracted. Patients' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects was measured by means of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale (LUNSERS). The LUNSERS was similarly employed to measure doctors' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects.Results During the recruitment period, 243 patients taking antipsychotic drugs were enrolled. The correlation between the total LUNSERS score reported by patients and doctors was very low (correlation coefficient 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.30). On average, patients perceived more adverse effects and with a significant higher distress than doctors. Multivariate analyses found no factors simultaneously associated with both patient and doctor ratings of adverse effects.Conclusion Our study suggests that doctors, researchers and health care providers should increasingly consider patient and doctor perspectives as two complementary dimensions that may provide different insights in the evaluation of antipsychotic drugs. Integrating different points of view may represent a way to develop a better therapeutic alliance that might decrease the likelihood of nonadherence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00127-010-0320-1

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nosè, M., Mazzi, M. A., Esposito, E., Bianchini, M., Petrosemolo, P., Ostuzzi, G., Tansella, M., & Barbui, C.
Affiliations
University of Verona (IT)
Corresponding author
Nosè, Michela
Venue
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Published
2010-11-28
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
157-164
ISSN
  • 0933-7954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-9285
OpenAlex
W2034105736
Cited by
16
References
31
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
antipsychotic adverse effects, patient perspectives, patient distress, therapeutic relationship, medication adherence, schizophrenia, mental health services
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Community Mental Health Services, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Italy, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Antipsychotic Agents, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review